LALIT KUMAR VIRMANI Vs. UNITED BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are Junior Management Grade (for short JMG) Scale I Officers in the United Bank of India. In this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, they have prayed for quashing Circulars, Annexures P-4 and P-6 dated 21.3.1995 and 21.4.1995 being violative of the policy, Annexure P-l issued by the respondent bank. Circulars have been issued by the respondent Bank for the holding of written examination for promotion of officers from JMG Scale I to Middle Management Grade (for short MMG) Scale II with a view to fill up the remaining vacancies in Normal Track under different circles, which could not be filled up in the promotion process commenced through Circular dated 9.12.1993, due to non-availability of suitable (successful) candidates, appearing from their respective circles.

(2.) The facts relevant for deciding the petition are that the respondent Bank is a Banking Company constituted under Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 with its registered office at Calcutta. It has a Chairman-cum-Managing Director as its head. It is under the overall control of Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division), Government of India, which has exclusively and administrative control over the respondent Bank.

(3.) Under the revised promotion policy, framed under the United Bank of India Service Regulations, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations') 326 vacancies were declared by the respondent Bank for being filled up by promotion from JMG Scale I to the post of MMG Scale II. 195 vacancies were identified in the Normal Track Channel and 131 in the Fast Track Channel. In pursuance to Circular dated 9.12,1993 a common written test for filling up of these vacancies was held on 29.5.1994, which was followed by interviews. 131 vacancies identified in the Fast Track Channel were duly filled up. Only 85 vacancies out of 195 in the Normal Track could be filled up thereby leaving 110 vacancies unfilled. According to the petitioners' case, the respondents were bound to shift these unfilled 110 vacancies from the Normal Track Channel to Fast Track Channel and to make promotions against the said vacancies, on merits, from out of candidates in the Fast Track Channel, strictly in accordance with Clause 2.3(c) of the policy. Instead of doing so, impugned Circulars Annexures P-4 and P-6 were issued for the conduct of a fresh examination on 14.5.1995 of JMG Scale I Officers in the category of Normal Track for promotion to MMG Scale II, confined only to those, who had failed in the combined written test held on 29.5.1994. Petitioners' case is that they had opted for promotion in the Fast Track Channel and were successful in the examination. Instead of adopting the only recourse, which is available to the respondents under the policy, fresh written test has been scheduled to be held for such of the Normal Track candidates, who had remained unsucessful. Respondents' act in issuing the Circulars is challenged as illegal, being mala fide and arbitrary to fill up 110 vacancies under Normal Track, whereas as per the policy the vacancies ought to have been shifted to the Fast Track Channel and filled up from amongst the candidates from the merit list in the Fast Track Channel. Accordingly direction is sought for quashing of the Circulars; and the test, if any, held on 14.5.1995 and the promotions made, if any, and to direct the respondents to shift the unfilled 110 vacancies of Normal Track to the Fast Track and to fill up the same from amongst Fast Track candidates, who were declared successful in the common written test held on 29.5.1995 and the subsequent interviews held on 7/8th March, 1995, strictly on the basis of merits. Petitioners had also prayed for an interim relief. On 24.5.1995, while issuing show cause notice it was directed that no appointment shall be made on the basis of the test held on 14.5.1995. Parties have now exchanged their affidavits and in view of the fact that interim order is operating, we heard learned Counsel for the parties at this stage itself on merits.