PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. RAJINDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Punjab National Bank (hereafter "PNB") appeals against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge whereby it was directed to promote the respondent (hereafter referred to as "the petitioner") with effect from the date his juniors were promoted. The issue concerned giving correct interpretation to Clause 9.2 of the Circular [hereafter "Clause 9.2"] issued by the PNB on 01.01.1998, inviting applications for promotion to the post of Junior Management Grade Scale -I [JMG -I] and Middle Management Grade Scale -II [MMG -II].

(2.) The admitted facts are that the PNB issued its promotion policy on 21.03.1991. The petitioner, who had joined the services of PNB in JMG -I in September 1986, had applied for promotion pursuant to the Circular/advertisement dated 01.01.1998. The petitioner belongs to a reserved category. He claims benefit of Clause 9.2. The correct interpretation of this condition became the bone of contention before this Court in the writ proceedings. Clause 9.2 reads as follows: "Promotion by selection method 9.2(a) Promotion by selection within Group A (Class I) In promotions by selection to posts within Group A (Class I) which carry an ultimate salary of Rs.5700/ - there is no reservation, but the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes Officers, who are senior enough in the zone of consideration for promotion so as to be within the number of vacancies for which the select list has to be drawn up, would be included in that list provided they are not considered unfit for promotion".

(3.) The promotion to the post of MMG -II is through two means ­ Channel -1 ­ is to the extent of 30% vacancies and envisions promotion on the basis of seniority -cum -interview. The eligibility prescribed for this Channel is 10 years in the feeder post. This Court is not concerned with that Channel. Channel -2, on the other hand ­ which deals with balance 70% vacancies envisions candidates' participation in a written test (with a maximum of 100 marks); Performance (max. 45 marks); Interview (max. 40 marks) and Qualification (max. 15 marks). The petitioner's grievance was that though he had cleared the written test, he was not considered and promoted. PNB, on the other hand, interpreted Clause 9.2 such as to mean that benefit of reservation was inapplicable to reserved category candidates and that the "concession" meant that the concerned SC (reserved) category candidate had to be in the select list. More importantly, it also contended that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in S. Vinod Kumar v. Union of India 1996 (6) SCC 580, the promotion claimed by the petitioner could not be given.