GOVINDAN KUTTY Vs. SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main grievance of the petitioner is that the junior officers have been promoted to the higher post in supercession of his claim arbitrarily by adopting the method of selection contrary to the rules / circulars. When this matter came up before a learned single Judge, it was contended that the respondents 1 and 2 ignored the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 604/88 and denied the promotion to the petitioner illegally. Learned Judge therefore, referred the matter for a decision by a Division Bench.

(2.) The petitioner prays for issuance of a direction to respondents 1 and 2 who are respectively South Malabar Gramin Bank, represented by its Chairman and the National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development (NAB ARD) represented by its General Manager to promote him to the post of Field Supervisor on the basis of his seniority and to quash the promotions given to the juniors as per Ext. P6. He was appointed as Junior Clerk on 6.5.1977 in the Gramin Bank (R1). He was promoted as Senior Clerk in the year 1980. The next promotion post is that of Field Supervisor. The second respondent (NABARD) has got administrative control over the Gramin Bank (R1) and therefore, it is bound to act according to the guidelines issued with regard to the service matters including promotions. The Chairman of the first respondent bank issued Ext. P1 memo dated 18.6.1987 intimating the proposal to select eligible employees for the post of Field Supervisors. It is made clear that promotion vacancies of Field Supervisors will be filled from among eligible senior clerks / stenographers who have completed four years of effective service as on 31.1.1996. The eligible candidates who come out successful in the written test by obtaining 50% marks will be called for the interview and the rank list will be prepared to the extent of declared vacancies duly awarding marks as detailed in Memo No. 67/81 and 86/81. The bank was making promotion to the post of Field Supervisor on the basis of a written test and interview and not strictly on the basis of seniority. The petitioner was rank No. 19 on the basis of seniority whereas the third respondent in this case was rank No. 50 in it. There were altogether 50 vacancies of Field Supervisor. The petitioner participated in the written test but could not come out successful in the same. By Ext. P4, the Bank issued a memo containing the list of persons who were eligible for the interview. Ext. P3 shows that there are 50 vacancies to the post of Field Supervisor and as per Ext. P4 only 50 persons were called for the interview. The result being that all the persons who come out successful in the written test were promoted to the post of Field Supervisor. The interview, it is contended, has thus been done as an empty formality. While the matters stood like this, the 2nd respondent issued guidelines to all the Regional Rural Banks on 1.12.1987 (Ext. P5) regarding the appointments to the post of Area Manager and Senior Manager. It was pointed out that promotional posts shall be filled up by 100% promotion from only one source and by seniority with due consideration of minimum merit / fitness prescribed. It was further clarified that fitness implies that there is nothing against the officer, no disciplinary action is pending against him and none is contemplated. It further laid down that similar procedure may be followed in the case of promotion from Junior Clerks to Senior Clerks and internal promotion to Field Supervisors and Managers. A direction was also given to review the promotions made so far to ensure that there are no supersessions.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is stated that the law laid down in W.A. 604/88 has not been made applicable to the case of promotion to the rank of Field Supervisor, in as much as the decision therein was confined to selection and promotion to the post of Area Manager / Senior Manager of the bank. It was also been submitted that though at the time when the vacancies arose, there were no statutory rules governing the matter, a practice was prevalent to hold a written test and an interview for preparing the select list of promotees to the rank of Field Supervisor as per the memo No. 65/81 dated 1.10.1981. The minimum eligibility criteria thus fixed by the bank was that a candidate was required to secure 50% marks in the written test and only those who have secured 50% or above marks in the written test were eligible to appear at the interview. On the basis of the assessment of performance in the interview as well as in the post which they were holding immediately prior to it, a merit that was prepared by the selection committee and promotion was given according to the merit list It is further contended that in Ext. R1(a) which is a circular issued by the Chairman of the NABARD relating to the promotions to the posts of Regional Rural Banks, it was clarified that the management of the Regional Rural Banks are not precluded from making comparative assessment of the officers / employees potential for considering their suitability for promotion. It was also directed that the system of objective assessment of the performance of the staff should be evolved and the potential for shouldering higher responsibilities should specifically be recorded in every performance appraised so as to ensure that only efficient staff was eligible for promotion. In the light of this clarification it is evident that promotion is not automatic. The real question is whether he is fit or suitable or has enough merit to justify his being entrusted with the duties of a higher post in the bank. Suitability for promotion after an objective assessment of the employees potential for discharging the duties of the higher office was absolutely necessary. The only method that could be adopted was to conduct a written test and viva voice test prescribing a minimum number of marks in the written test which should be obtained before a candidate is considered eligible for appearing at the viva voce test. This is what the bank has done and there is no arbitrary promotion of any candidate who is not found fit to be promoted.