SATPURA KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK Vs. VED PRAKASH ARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS batch of writ appeals preferred under Section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assailing the faultlessness of the order dated 10.5.2006 passed by the learned single Judge in WP No. 2682/2002, WP No. 2683/2002 and WP No. 2684/2002, were heard analogously and are disposed of by the singular order. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the facts in Writ Appeal No. 228/2006 which arises from WP No. 2683/2002 are uncurtained herein. Be it placed on record, the factual scenario in each case is the same.

(2.) THE respondent invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenged his non -promotion to the post of Scale - II post and prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus to command the respondent therein to promote him with effect from 1.4.2002 with all consequential benefits. As pleaded, he was appointed to the post of Officer in the Kshetriya Gramin Bank (in short 'the Bank) on 11.3.1983 and his services were confirmed on 30.3.1986. A set of Rules, namely, Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1998 (in short 'the Rules') was framed under the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976 for appointment and promotion of the employees. The third Schedule of the said Rules provides for appointment of different categories of the officers and stipulates the eligibility criteria and mode of selection. As regards the Scale II officers it is specifically provided therein that the source of appointment shall be 100% by promotion and criteria of the promotion shall be on the basis of seniority -cum -merit. As far as the writ petitioner is concerned, he was holding the post of officer in the Bank for eight years on regular basis and he was entitled to be considered for promotion in Scale II post in the Bank. Under the Rules, the mode of selection is to select suitable person on the basis of written test, interview and the assessment of 'performance of appraisal' of last five years.

(3.) AS setforth, the Bank decided to promote Scale -I officers to the available 17 posts of Scale II officers and accordingly issued the guidelines in that regard. A copy of the same has been brought on record as Annexure P -2 to the writ petition. Under the guidelines, no minimum marks are required in the interview and a general category candidate is required to secure minimum 34 marks. The marks awarded for the interview and performance appraisal are required be added to the total marks. As per the stipulation in the guidelines a candidate who was declared successful in the written test is to be called for the interview. The Bank decided to call 68 candidates for interview as they were eligible. The petitioner being eligible under the Rules appeared in the written test as well as in the interview and was placed at Sr. No. 43 in the seniority list. Various assertions were made in the writ petition about the service graph of the petitioner and how he was having excellent service record. Despite the same the writ petitioner was not selected for the post in question. It was contended before the writ court that in the interview and appraisal no minimum marks were required and as the petitioner obtained more than quailing marks in the written test, he could not have been denied promotion. It was urged that a representation was submitted to the Bank but the same fell into deaf ears.