ANIL SRIVASTAVA Vs. NAINITAL BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 18.10.2003 issued by the Staff Department, Head Office, Nainital Bank whereby the petitioner has been superseded in promotion. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to promote him from the date persons junior to him were promoted with all consequential benefits.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Clerk in Nainital Bank Ltd. on 28.11.1977 and was posted at Kichha Branch, District Nainital. Thereafter, he was transferred to Lucknow on 15.04.1978 and was posted at Ashiyana Branch, Lucknow. The opposite parties on 28.04.2003 issued guidelines for promotion from clerical grade to the officers grade by means of which it was provided that 50% of the posts of Officers' Cadre Grade/Scale -1 will be filled on the basis of seniority from amongst the junior management and the remaining 50% by way of merit. According to the petitioner 10 posts of Officers' Cadre had fallen vacant and as per guidelines 5 posts were to be filled through seniority and the remaining 5 posts were to be filled by merit channel. In the seniority channel the eligibility criteria was seniority, qualification and written test. Out of 100 marks, 30 marks were allocated for seniority, for the purpose of academic qualification 10 marks were allocated and 60 marks were allocated for written test. In the seniority channel, the eligibility criteria was that the candidate should have at least 18 years of active service as on 31.03.2003. In the clerical cadre, 30 marks allotted for seniority were divided in which 18 marks for minimum qualifying active service of clerical cadre, one and half mark for each additional active service over and above 18 years but the maximum marks that could be allotted to a candidate were 30 marks. The written test was consisting of objective and descriptive test, but there was no minimum qualifying mark in the written test. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he was to be promoted from the seniority channel. The petitioner was eligible and qualified having put more than 25 years of active service. He, therefore, applied for promotion and was also called for written test to be held on 10.08.2003. Since there was no interview in the seniority channel, the opposite parties on 18.10.2003 declared the result of the selection of the seniority channel, but the name of the petitioner was not in the list. When the petitioner enquired as to why his name has not been included in the select list, he came to know that the opposite parties have superseded him by allotting wrong marks in the field of seniority and qualification. The petitioner had been the General Secretary of the Nainital Bank Employees Association for two years and had asserted for the cause of its members. It was for this reason that the opposite parties were annoyed with the petitioner. The petitioner remained under suspension for about six years from 21.09.1983 till 26.05.1990.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the opposite parties has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition and has argued that the Nainital Bank Ltd. is a Company registered under the Companies Act and has its independent Board of Directors. Thus, the Nainital Bank Ltd. is not State within the ambit and scope of State as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is, therefore, not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He has further placed before the Court, a copy of the order dated 28.07.1999 passed in Writ Petition No.20284 of 1998. A perusal of which indicates that one such writ petition filed by one Rambir Singh at Allahabad was dismissed on this ground alone. The submission on behalf of the opposite parties is that the writ petition should not be entertained and should be dismissed as not maintainable.