ADARSH KUMAR SINGHAL Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition was filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 5.9.97 at Annexure -6 to the writ petition whereby the respondents refused to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner regarding his grievances against refusal of promotion to cadre known as JMGS -I. On the ground that the policy prevailing in the bank does not contain any provision for appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Annexures -4 and 5 to the writ petition and contended that the provision of appeal permissible under the circular dated 21.3.97 has not been taken away by the amendment incorporated by the circular dated 4.9.97. Shri J.N. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents advanced arguments. Counter affidavit has not been filed inspite of opportunity granted. Thereafter time was also granted for taking instructions and the parties have agreed to final disposal of the writ petition at this stage. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the relevant policy dated 28.6.94 does not provide any appeal and therefore the said two circulars at Annexures -4 and 5 of the writ petition do not widen the scope for preferring an appeal.

(2.) AFTER considering the respective contention of the parties and perusing the aforesaid two circulars dated 21.3.97 and 4.9.97 I find that the circular dated 21.3.97 has the title as follows: - -

(3.) THE said circular dated 4.9.1997 as contained in Annexure -5 to the writ petition makes it clear that the same was mere amendment of the earlier circular dated 21.3.97. As the cadre JMGS -I has not been referred in the said circular dated 4.9.97, the said amendment, in my opinion, did not affect the provision contained in the earlier circular dated 21.3.97.