(1.) This is an appeal by respondents 1 and 2 in O. P.29 of 1975 which was allowed by a learned Judge of this court by the judgment under appeal. The respondents to this appeal are the petitioner in the said original petition as well as respondents 3 to 8 in the O. P. By the judgment under appeal Exts. P5 and P6 in the original petition which were impugned have been set aside.
(2.) The controversy between the petitioner in the original petition, the first respondent herein and respondents 3 to 8 in the original petition who are respondents 2 to 7 in this appeal resulted from the integration of the Trivandrum and Cochin offices of the Ist appellant, the Reserve Bank of India. By such integration the 1st respondent has been placed below respondents 2 to 7 and Exts. R8 and R9 produced along with the counter affidavit of the 1st appellant the Reserve Bank of India have been relied on in support of the ranking the 1st respondent below respondents 2 to 7. The contention that was raised by the 1st respondent before the learned Judge was that Ext. R5 produced by the 1st appellant should have been applied and Exts. R8 and R9 should not have been relied on. The learned Judge by the judgment under appeal has directed a reconsideration of the question. The appellants, the Reserve Bank of India and the Deputy Chief Officer, Reserve Bank of India, Department of Banking Operations and Development contend that the integration effected and the ranks assigned are valid and require no reconsideration. We shall state the necessary facts.
(3.) The first respondent started his career as an employee in the Reserve Bank of India in Madras as a clerk Grade II. He was later promoted while working there as an officiating clerk Grade I. Thereafter he was transferred to the Cochin Office of the Bank which commenced functioning in 1970. When he was transferred to the Cochin Branch he was transferred as a clerk Grade II the substantive post that he was holding at that time and he therefore started functioning in the Cochin office as a clerk Grade It. Later on he was promoted as a clerk Grade I in the Cochin office and he was also confirmed as a clerk Grade I in that office. Respondents 2 to 7 held similar posts in the Trivandrum office of the bank. It is sufficient to state that all of them started as clerks Grade II after the date on which the petitioner started functioning as clerk Grade II in the Madras office of the bank. It is also seen that respondents 2 to 7 were first promoted as clerks Grade I only after the first respondent was promoted as clerk Grade I in the Madras office. But respondents 2 to 7 got opportunities of officiating in the staff officers' Grade II before the first respondent was appointed as a staff officer Grade II. The second respondent was functioning as an officiating staff officer Grade II on 1-7-74. Respondents 3 to 7 had functioned as officiating staff officers Grade II before 1-7-74 but were actually not functioning as staff officer Grade II on 1-7-74 The first respondent was promoted as an officiating staff officer Grade II in August 1974. According to the appellants the principle that was applied for the integration of the staff at Trivandrum and Cochin was the same as that was applied for the integration of the offices at Bombay and Byculla and Kanpur and Lucknow which is evidenced by Ext- R5. The only difference according to the appellants was that the offices just now mentioned were integrated with reference to the date, 7th May 1972 while the offices at Trivandrum and Cochin were integrated only with effect from 1-7-74 The relevant part of Ext. R5 in regard to the integration principle as far as the staff officers Grade II were concerned, is admittedly seen in Para.9(III) (a) of Ext. R5. We shall extract the relevant part of Ext. R5.