S V NARCYANA Vs. KOLAR GRAMIN BANK REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these Writ Appeals what falls for decision is the validity of the method and procedure adopted by the Management of Kolar gramin Bank in selecting and promoting respondents 2 to 12 herein to the post of Field Supervisors. When the validity of their appointment to the post of Field Supervisors was called in question in Writ Petition No. 13400 of 1991 by the appellants herein and certain others, a learned Single Judge of this Court without finding any merit in any one of the contentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioners dismissed the Writ Petition by Judgment and Order dated 17th of April, 1998. Hence, these writ appeals by the aggrieved writ petitioners, six in number.

(2.) THE facts of the case be stated briefly are as under. The appellants at the relevant point of time were working as junior Clerks in the establishment of the Bank. The next promotiona post for Junior Clerks is the post of Senior Clerk 50% of. posts in the cadre of Field Supervisors are required to be filled by way of promotion from the cadres of Senior and Junior Clerks in terms of the statutory Regulations governing recruitment to that post. On 1-1-1990 the Bank's Management issued employment notification to fill 11 posts of Field Supervisors. The Management after processing the claims of the appellants herein, the other writ petitioners as well as contesting respondents issued memorandum on 26-11-1990 whereunder respondents 2 to 12 were promoted as field Supervisors. The validity of selection and appointment of the respondents 2 to 12 was assailed before this Court in Writ Petition no. 13400 of 1991.

(3.) SRI K. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the appellantsat the threshold would maintain that though under the relevant statutory rules the post of Field Supervisors has to be filled by the method known as 'seniority-cum-merit', actually the Management treated that post as the selection post and without giving any weightage to the seniority, but only on the basis of relative'and comparative merit, selections were made and on that count itself, the selection and appointment of respondents 2 to 12 is liable to be quashed. Sri Subba Rao also contended that learned Single judge erred in law in placing reliance on the Judgment of the supreme Court in SRI JAGATHIGOWDA,c. N. AND OTHERS vs chairman CAUVERY GRAMINA BANK AND OTHERS, without appreciating the facts of that case. Be that as it may, Sri Subba rao would maintain that, that judgment of the Supreme Court came to be considered by a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court later in B. V. SIVAIAH AND OTHERS ETC. vs K. ADDANKI BABU and OTHERS, and having considered that Judgment, the Supreme court has laid down that if a post has to be filled by, 'senioritycum-merit' method along with the appraisal of performances of candidates who come under zone of consideration, the recruiting authority should prescribe a 'standard minimum' in order to bring in only required number of eligible candidates from the feeder cadre so as to screen them further for promotion by adopting 'seniority-cum-merit' method.