UMESH KUMAR PAHWA S/O. SRI SOM NATH PAHWA Vs. BOARD OF DIRECTOR AND CHAIRMAN NAINITAL-ALMORA KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Petitioner appearing in person and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Bank.

(2.) PETITIONER was in Scale II on 4th March, 2005. On the same date, exercise for giving promotion from Scale II to Scale III was initiated. Petitioner, upon completion of such exercise, was not promoted instead his juniors were promoted. In course of the promotional exercise, Petitioner was interviewed. Petitioner contended that non -grant of promotion to the Petitioner on completion of promotional exercise and instead giving promotion to his juniors, is not sustainable in law. In order to vindicate his such contention, Petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) FROM the said minutes, it appears that the Board of the Bank had fixed 60 marks as the minimum qualifying benchmark for Performance Appraisal Reports and also fixed 60 marks as the minimum qualifying benchmark overall. In other words, an officer could be deemed to be qualified provided he has got 60 marks in Performance Appraisal Reports, and if he has got the same, it shall be deemed that the said officer has obtained the minimum qualifying benchmark. This was purportedly done on the advice given by NABARD on 23rd December, 2004 to Ganga -Yamuna Gramin Bank purportedly on the basis of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in B.V. Sivaiah and Ors. v. K. Addanki Babu and Ors. reported in : (1998) 6 SCC 720, and in Union of India v. Rajendra Singh, : 2000 (6) SCC 698. The signatory of the said letter of NABARD is Assistant General Manager of NABARD. The same was written in response to a letter of Ganga -Yamuna Gramin Bank addressed to the Sponsor Bank. The said letter, therefore, cannot be treated as a letter written by NABARD to the Respondent Bank, though a copy thereof was forwarded to the Respondent bank, and at the same time, the same cannot be treated as a circular letter of NABARD circulated to banks similarly situated to that of the Respondent Bank. Even assuming the said letter was an advisory letter, the question is whether, in law, the Respondent Bank could act on the basis of the said advice. In other words, whether, in law, the Respondent Bank could do what it did by fixing a minimum qualifying benchmark for Performance Appraisal Reports.