BALBIR SINGH NAYYAR Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Petitioner is the appellant in this appeal. This writ appeal was preferred against the Judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No.4529 of 1990.

(2.) Writ Petition itself was filed for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to act according to law and promote the petitioner to the rank and status of Senior Manager in the Middle Management Grade Scale III of the Bank with effect from 12-6-1989 along with other promotees.

(3.) In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it was stated that the petitioner joined Lakshmi Commercial Bank Ltd., in the year 1970 as a Clerk and later he was promoted as an Accountant in the year 1976 and got further promotion as Manager in the year 1977. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Area Manager by an order dated 26-4-1985 and assumed duties on the very same date. However, the said promotion was later withdrawn on the ground that the then Directors of the Bank have not approved the same. While so, Lakshmi Commercial Bank Ltd., was amalgamated with the first respondent Bank with effect from 24-8-1985 by virtue of a notification of Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division), New Delhi, dated 23-8-1985. As per the terms of the scheme of amalgamation, all the employees of the Lakshmi Commercial Bank Limited, other than those specified in the schedule annexed to the scheme, were continued in service and were deemed to have been appointed as employees of the first respondent-bank with the benefit of continuity of service, with effect from 24-8-1985. The petitioner-appellant herein was'one of the persons included in the schedule annexed to the scheme. The employees of the Lakshmi Commercial Bank Limited who were included in the schedule annexed to the scheme including the appellant herein moved the Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition No.719 of 1986 and the said writ petition was ultimately allowed and the first respondent bank was directed to take over the excluded employees whose names were included in the scehdule annexed to the scheme. Thereafter, the appellant herein joined first respondent bank on 29-4-1987 and that he rendered unblemished and meritorious service in Lakshmi Commercial Bank Limited. While so, first respondent bank by Memo No.65 of 1989 dated 9-3-1989 published notice calling for applications in the prescribed format from the Managers, Middle Management Grade Scale - II to Senior Manager Middle Management Scale - III by promotion by way of selection and the selection process was laid down in the Memo No.65/89 dated 9-3-1989 issued by first respondent bank. The petitioner - appellant submitted his application and he was called and interviewed on 21-4-1989. First respondent bank released the list of promotees by a Memo No.138/89 dated 10-6-1989. The appellant found that his name was not in the list and therefore, he requested the bank by his letter dated 16-8-1989 to inform him regarding the marks awarded to him. According to the appellant, he secured more marks than one of the last promotees, viz., Mr. Haribilas Biswas. Aggrieved at the denial of promotion, which according to the appellant is without any reason and arbitrary, writ petition was filed. It was further stated in the affidavit that neither any charge-sheet nor memo was served upon the appellant till the date of filing of the writ petition and therefore, the denial of promotion to him is wholly bad. He made an allegation that since he was holding the post of Organising Secretary of Canara Bank Officers Union (Registered), he was victimised. According to the appellant, entire procedure adopted by the respondent bank in withholding his promotion is wholly unsustainable and unconstitutional.