N KRISHNAN Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was originally recruited as an Officer Trainee in the 1st respondent Bank on 12.12.1977. He was confirmed in the post of Junior Management Grade Scale-I (JMGS-I) on 18.12.1978. THE next post to which the petitioner can aspire for promotion is that of Middle Management Grade Scale-II (MMGS- II). THE Bank, by circular dated 19.3.1990 initiated steps for filling up 120 vacancies of MMGS-II by promotion from among qualified JMGS-I officers. THE promotion policy as obtaining in 1990 was Ext.P2, which was revised by Ext.P4 circular dated 16.04.1990. In the promotion policy, both as per Exts.P2 and P4, the minimum eligibility condition for promotion to the post of MMGS-II is contained in paragraph 4. As per Note 1 of paragraph 4 of Exts.P2 & P4, Officers in JMGS-I, who have worked for 2 years in a branch/office located in a rural area, shall only be considered for promotion provided he has completed 7 years in JMGS-I, as on 31st December of the previous year. THE same was made applicable to promotions with effect from 01.06.1988. Further as per Clause 11.10 of Exts.P2 and P4 the maximum number of officers to be considered for promotion shall be restricted to 4 times the number of vacancies. THE petitioner had already put in 3 = years of rural service as early as in 1982. THE petitioner also have the minimum service for consideration for promotion to the post of MMGS-II. Ext.P5 is the seniority list of JMGS-I officers at the relevant time. THE petitioner was included as rank No. 275 in Ext.P5 seniority list. Respondents 4 and 5 were juniors to the petitioner and their ranks in Ext.P5 seniority list were 1163 and 1210. After completing the procedure for promotions 117 JMGS-I officers were promoted as MMGS-II. According to the petitioner, persons like the fourth respondent, who did not possess the prescribed eligibility service of two years in rural branches were also promoted by Ext.P6. THE fourth and fifth respondents who could not have been validly included in the zone of consideration was also promoted. At the same time the petitioner, who was fully qualified and eligible and much senior to the said persons was not promoted. (He was promoted only on 01.09.1993 by Ext.P1 order.) Aggrieved by the denial of promotion, the petitioner filed Ext.P9 appeal to the second respondent. But no orders were passed in the said appeal. Petitioner filed O.P. No.1500/1991 challenging the promotion process. In the said original petition, the Chairman & Managing Director of the Bank filed a counter affidavit stating that the Bank had waived the condition regarding rural service in the 1990 promotion process, but no details were furnished therein. By Ext.P12 judgment dated 06.11.2003, this court set aside Ext.P10 order by which the petitioner's representation was rejected and directed the second respondent appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's appeal with notice to the petitioner and to pass an order adverting to the contentions of the petitioner. But without notice to the petitioner and without hearing him, the third respondent passed Ext.P15 order dated 24.12.2004 holding that the requirement of rural service as a condition for promotion was not enforced due to administrative constraints. Petitioner is challenging Ext.P15 order in this writ petition.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the entire process of selection for promotion is vitiated for having been done against the specific eligibility and other conditions for such promotion in the promotion policy framed by the Bank themselves, insofar as the persons who did not possess the minimum requirement for promotion have been considered for promotion and persons who could not have been validly included in the zone of consideration have been promoted. The petitioner strongly disputes that there was a waiver of the eligibility condition of minimum two years' rural service. ACCORDING to the petitioner, the reason for alleged waiver of the condition regarding the rural service is also unsustainable in view of Ext.P3 issued by the Bank, wherein persons who did not possess the minimum two year rural service were offered an opportunity to acquire the said minimum requirement and therefore all officers had sufficient opportunity to obtain the minimum rural service by 31st December 1989 as is clear from Ext.P3, opportunity to seek posting in rural branches were offered as early as on 5.10.1987. The petitioner further contends that, insofar as admittedly the promotion process was initiated for filling up 120 vacancies and only 480 candidates could have been validly included within the zone of consideration the fact that, more than 1200 persons have been considered for such promotion would go to show that the specific conditions in the promotion policy have not been adhered to while affecting the promotion. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs:

(3.) I have considered the rival contentions in detail. W.P.(C)No.16893/05 8 Note.1 to Clause 4 of Ext.P2 reads thus: