ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE Vs. P K JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, the Code) involves the following questions which were formulated for adjudication by order dated 24-4-1995 :-

(2.) Background facts necessary for adjudication of the issues involved are essentially as follows:-

(3.) In support of the appeal the appellants have submitted that under Section 19(3) of the Act, the Bank was empowered to pass a resolution for filling up vacancy that had arisen especially when there was no promotion policy operative in the Bank. Before Regulations were framed under section 19(1), during the intervening period, Section 19(3) was to hold the field and Articles of Association having been disjunctively used in the Section, Board of Directors was empowered to pass necessary resolution deriving powers from the said Articles. Admittedly there were no Bye laws. Rules or Regulations framed by the Bank as it had no authority to frame bye laws'which could only be done by an authority constituted under the law. The policy adopted by the appellant Bank was clearly covered by Section 19(3). So far as the directions for promotion without selection are concerned, the same is legally untenable. Even if it is conceded for the sake of argument that Section 19(3) of the Act did not come to the assistance of the appellant Bank, the net result would be that the resolution dated 27.10.1978 would be operative and the plaintiff can be only considered for promotion in terms of the said resolution. Learned counsel for the Bank further submitted that we need not go into the question whether criteria laid down on 25.8.1982 is in line with Section 19(3) of the Act, if it is held that direction for promotion could not have been given. It is further pointed out that the direction is clearly untenable because the plaintiff was considered in all the processes of promotion for several years i.e. in 1978, 1979 and 1980 ( earlier to the impugned selection) but he was not found suitable in 1988, 1990 and 1991 ( after the impugned selection) he was called for selection but he did not appear. He was also called for interview in July-August, 1986 but wife not recommended for promotion. Finally he was called for interview in march, 1998. He appeared and was found suitable and was offered promotion from 1.4.1998. Additionally, out of 55 persons who were selected, promotion given only to 29 persons i.e. defendants 3 to 31 is under challenge.