KRISHNA CHANDRA BEHERA Vs. CHAIRMAN NEELACHAND GRAMY BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 13115 of 2009 prays for issuing mandamus to opposite party No. 1 -bank for giving promotion to him and other eligible employees of the opposite party -bank and to quash the advertisement issued by the opposite party -bank for filling up Officers Scale -1 post by direct recruitment. Since the prayer in W.P. (C) No. 12802 of 2009 is same, both the writ petitions are heard together.

(2.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk, but later on his designation was changed to Clerk -cum -cashier of the Puri Gramya Bank. The said bank was merged with Dhenkanal Gramya Bank and the present opposite party No. 1 -Neelachal Gramya Bank was formed. It is the case of the petitioner that employees having ten years of service in the grade are eligible to sit in the written test to qualify for being called to appear at the viva voce test for appointment to the post of Scale -1 Officer. Last time in the year 2005 a written test was held and 82 persons were called to the viva voce test since the vacancy was identified to be 41. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed and because of an interim order passed by this Court, though 41 posts were made available for promotion from amongst the Clerk -cum -cashiers working under Puri Gramya Bank, the same could not be filled up.

(3.) OPPOSITE Party No. 1 has filed the counter -affidavit, inter alia, alleging that the petitioner had appeared in the examination of 2005 and It was not selected in the written examination and was not called for the interview. It is further submitted that the advertisement/notification of direct recruitment to the post of Scale -1 cadre has been done in accordance with the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1998 framed by the Central Government in exercise of its power conferred under section 29 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. It is further submitted that the process of direct recruitment is an independent one and it has nothing to do with the petitioner as he is concerned with promotion in the promotion quota and the ratio of direct recruitment vis -a -vis promotion is 50:50 and the petitioner should be considered as and when the promotion quota is filled up and there is no cause of action for him to challenge the direct recruitment which is being done by way of open advertisement.