KAMLESH KUMAR KAURAV Vs. CHAMBAL KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by an order issued by the respondent-Bank vide PRS/2000-2001/circu!ar No. 23/2083, dated 17th July, 2000 promoting eleven officers of Scale I to Scale II, one of its officer who has been superseded had preferred this writ petition which has been referred to this Division Bench by the Single Bench.

(2.) FACTS of the case in brief giving rise to this petition are that the respondent No. I/bank, which was established and incorporated under Section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, had eleven vacancies of officers in Scale II which were to be filled by promotions of its officers belonging to Scale I. Such promotions were governed by the Regional Rural Bank (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1988, which with effect from 29-7-1998 were substituted by new Rules, known as Regional Rural Bank (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1998. The Rules of 1998 require a written test which was not prescribed in the old Rules of 1988. The respondent No. 1/bank, promoted its officers to Scale II on the aforesaid eleven posts vide its impugned order applying the Rules of 1988.

(3.) THE contention of the petitioner was that out of the aforesaid eleven posts only three posts came into existence prior to the enforcement of the new Rules of 1998 and the remaining eight posts came into existence after the enforcement of the said Rules of 1998. However, before the impugned order came into existence apprehending that the respondent-Bank would adopt the procedure prescribed in the Rules of 1998 only for filling up of these vacancies the petitioner had preferred a Writ Petition No. 1125 of 2000 (Kamlesh Kumar Kaurav v. Chambal Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Ors.), which was disposed of vide order dated 12-7-2000 of a Single Bench holding that the Rules in force prior to 1998 had ceased to be effective with the enforcement of the new Rules of 1998 and the selection process has to take place in terms of the Rules of 1998. But, the respondent-Bank in disregard to that decision of this High Court has applied the old Rules of 1988 for filling up the above said eleven vacancies by promotions.