G BHEEMSEN RAO Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue, namely, seniority list of Officers of Junior Management Scale I (OJM-I) issued in Staff Circular No. 13/2000-01 dated 21-10-2000, involved in all the three writ petitions is common. Hence, they are being disposed by this common order.

(2.) In WP No.21445 of 2000, petitioners 1 and 2 were appointed as Branch Managers in the 2nd respondent-Bank on 4-11-1985 and they joined in the said post on the same day. The 3rd petitioner, who was appointed as Branch Manager in the same bank on 3-11-1986 also joined in the said post on the same day. Ever since their appointment they are continuing as such, whereas respondents 3 to 6 were joined in service on 11-12-1985, 18-11-1985, 12-11-1986 and 14-11-1986 respectively. Basing upon the same in service particulars of Branch Managers as on 31-12-1988 petitioners 1 to 3 were shown at Sl.No.55, 57 and 72 respectively whereas respondents 3 to 6 were shown at Sl.Nos.64, 63, 73 and 74 respectively. The Seniority List of Branch Managers as on 1-4-1991 was issued in Staff Circular No.6/91-92 dated 13-5-1991, in which petitioners 1 to 3 were shown at Sl.Nos.48, 49 and 71, whereas respondents 3 to 6 were shown at Sl.Nos.64, 63, 73 and 74 respectively. Meanwhile, on the instructions contained in para-25 of the Working Group Report on RRBs. a combined seniority list of Branch Managers and Field Supervisors was also prepared under Staff Circular No.26/93-94 dated 18-1-1994 in which petitioners 1 to 3 were shown at S1. Nos.42, 43 and 65 whereas respondents 3 to 6 were shown at Sl.Nos.58, 57, 66 and 67 respectively. Similarly in the Seniority List of Officers (OJM-I) as on 1-4-1997 was issued in Staff Circular No. 12/ 97-98 dated 23-2-1998 in which petitioners 1 to 3 were shown at Sl.Nos.35, 36 and 58, whereas respondents 3 to 6 were shown at Sl.Nos.51, 50, 59 and 60 respectively. While so, respondent-Bank issued Staff Circular No.2/2000-01 dated 28-6-2000 informing that written test was conducted on 5-3-2000 for forty eligible officers for consideration of promotion from OJM I to MMG Scale II in which petitioners 1 to 3 were shown at Sl.Nos.14, 15 and 31, whereas respondents 3, 4 and 6 were shown at Sl.Nos.27, 26 and 32 respectively. Curiously Revised Seniority List of Officers of ONJ I Grade was issued in Staff Circular No.5/2000-01 dated 1-8-2000 in which petitioners were shown at Sl.Nos.18,19 and 41 whereas respondents 3 to 6 were shown at S1.Nos.9, 17, 34 ad 40 respectively and representations were called for on the above said revised seniority list on or before 10-8-2000. The petitioners submitted their objections on 9-8-2000, 4-8-2000 and 5-8-2000 respectively and filed WP No. 14857 of 2000 questioning the provisional Seniority List dated 1-8-2000. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-Bank, it was stated that revised Seniority List dated 1-8-2000 was only provisional and vide Circular No.7/2000-01 dated 14-8-2001 time was extended for filing representations/objections by the aggrieved staff member. In the meanwhile without considering the representations, the 2nd respondent-Bank issued final Seniority List vide Staff Circular No. 13/2000-01 dated 21-10-2000 confirming the Seniority List dated 1-8-2000. In view of the same, the said writ petition was disposed of on 30-10-2000 with a liberty to the petitioners to question the final revised Seniority List dated 21-10-2000. Questioning the final Seniority List the present writ petition is filed stating that by the impugned Seniority List dated 21-10-2000 showing the petitioners juniors to the unofficial respondents is arbitrary and illegal and seek alteration of the same after a long lapse of time basing upon the observation made in the interim order granted by this Court in WPMP 28676 of 1999 is unwarranted and the same is contrary to Regulations 13 (1)(a), 7 and 13 (3) of the Staff Service Regulations, 1982.

(3.) It is contended that consideration of fixation of seniority is only date of appointment but not date of joining as such. In view of the fact that all the petitioners joined earlier to the un-official respondents, they were rightly shown as seniors in the service particulars of Branch Managers on 31-5-1988 and also in the Seniority Lists published in the years 1991, 1994 and 1998. Once the Seniority List had become final it cannot be reopened pursuant to interim order granted by this Court. Therefore, ranking theory, which was adopted by the respondent-Bank for fixation of seniority, is contrary to regulations and the same is liable to set aside.