SRIVASTAVA V K Vs. U O I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Anil Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Ratan, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the counter and rejoinder affidavits.

(2.) By this writ application, the petitioner has claimed promotion from clerical cadre to Officer cadre on the ground that he is entitled to the marks allotted for experience of working in rural branches, which according to him, have been denied by the respondents on arbitrary ground i. e. the cut off date mentioned in the Circular dated October 23, 1992 was December 1, 1997. On this date, according to the Bank, petitioner was not actually working in a rural branch and as such was not entitled to marks for working in rural branch. The petitioner has assailed the Circular dated October 23, 1992 as being unfair, arbitrary and on the ground that it provides a handle to the respondents to pick and choose or manipulate consideration of candidates for depriving them from being considered for promotion. He has alleged that though he has experience of working in rural branch of the Bank, he has not been awarded two additional marks.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent Bank has rejected the representation of the petitioner dated February 3, 1999 and has denied the marks to the petitioner for working in the rural branches. It has been alleged that the cut off date was December 1, 1997 for promotion. Clause 3.4 of the promotion policy provides that two additional marks for two years service in the rural branches will be given to such candidates. This clause is as under: