LEELA BAI Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for the issue of the appropriate writ or direction quashing the orders of promotion of respondents 4 to 6 and 8 to the cadre of Sub-Accountant in the Reserve Bank of India, superseding the claims of the petitioner, and to issue the necessary writ or order directing respondents 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner in the grade of Sub-Accountant with effect from 14-12-1964 or in the alternative to direct respondents 1 to 3 to consider the claims of the petitioner for promotion to the grade of Sub-Accountant in accordance with the rules and with effect from 14-12-1964.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk Grade II in the Bank in 1955. After about five years she was promoted as a Clerk in Grade 1. Petitioner says that she has passed Part 1 of the C.A.I.l.B. examination conducted by the Indian Institute of Bankers, and was qualified for being selected to the next higher grade which is that of Sub-Accountant. There was a selection in April 1963 from the clerks in Grade 1 for appointment to the grade of Sub-Accountant. Petitioner's Seniors alone were then promoted and the petitioner has no grievance about the selection. Thereafter on 10-12-1964 there was another selection and the petitioner was called for interview by the Selection Board. About 10 clerks in Grade I were called for interview and some of the petitioner's seniors were selected. The petitioner has no complaint about the selection of her seniors, but she complains about the selection of respondents 4 to 6 and 8 as they are juniors to the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that according to the regulations of the Reserve Bank of India, the selection of respondents 4 to 6 and 8 ignoring the claim of the petitioner was unauthorised. The petitioner also contends that the selection of her juniors was made mala fide.

(3.) The question for consideration is whether the petitioner was entitled to be promoted to the post of Sub-Accountant and whether the promotion of her juniors to the post in preference to her was improper. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulation.1948, hereinafter called the Regulations, which is marked as Ex. R-2 in this case, the petitioner was entitled to be promoted to the post of Sub-Accountant as she had the necessary qualification for the same. Counsel submitted that the Regulations have been framed under S.58 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, and that according to the Regulations seniority cum fitness is the criterion for promotion to the post of Sub-Accountant. I do not think that there is anything in the Regulations which justifies ( this contention. R.29 of the Regulations is as follows: