SANTOSH KUMAR MOHAPATRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment dated 12.2.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.6355 of 2012 and batch of writ applications. By the said judgment, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ applications and quashed the list, for promotion of Office Assistants (Multipurpose Group 'B' Clerical) cadre to Officer JMG Scale -1, prepared by the respondent no.4 -Bank, vide Annexure -3, and directed the Bank to reassess the Performance Appraisal Report of Office Assistants (Multipurpose Group 'B' Clerical Cadre) and prepare a fresh list. It was, inter alia, directed that while preparing the said list, the Bank would consider the marks secured by the employees in the written test.

(2.) RESPONDENT nos.5, 8, 11, 13, 19 and eleven others have filed Writ Application No.6355 of 2012 contending that they were initially appointed as Junior Clerks in the erstwhile Puri Gramya Bank and subsequently promoted to the post of Senior Clerks. In the year 2007, Puri Gramya Bank was amalgamated with Dhenkanal Gramya Bank, whereafter Neelachal Gramya Bank was created. The posts of the petitioners were re -designated as Office Assistants (Multipurpose Group 'B' Clerical). After creation of Neelachal Gramya Bank on 30.8.2007, a provisional seniority list of the Office Assistants was prepared. While the matter stood thus, the Bank issued a notification on 11.6.2011 for promotion from the post of Office Assistant (Multipurpose Group 'B' Clerical) cadre to Officer JMG Scale -1 Cadre to fill up 97 posts in accordance with Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2010. As per the said notification, written test was conducted on 4.9.2011 and interview was held from 16.11.2011 to 19.11.2011. The petitioners were sanguine of their promotion, since they were seniors and blemishless service career. But then, the Bank had given promotion to the employees, who were juniors to them, basing upon their PAR, though they had secured less marks in the written test and interview. With this factual background they have prayed, inter alia, for a direction to the Orissa Gramya Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'Bank') to reconsider their cases of promotion by awarding suitable marks in the Performance Appraisal Report (hereinafter referred to as 'PAR').

(3.) PURSUANT to issuance of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no.4 -Bank. The sum and substance of the case of the Bank is that a person in his PAR need not have any adverse remark, but that does not necessarily mean that he is having all 'excellent' remark in his PAR. The bank as per the prevailing practice awarded marks keeping the evaluation of the particular candidate's performance, different grades, namely 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D' and 'E' and these grades are awarded in order to facilitate the promotion process by converting the grades to numerical by the following procedure: - <FRM>JUDGEMENT_6_LAWS(ORI)2_2015.htm</FRM> Unit 'A' represents remarks given for 'outstanding' and taken as marks for 80 to 100, and since there is no clear cut/definite marks earmarked for such 'outstanding', remark, the average of 80+100 is taken as the base which comes to 90. If a person has got 12 'A's the said 90 is divided into 12 which comes to 7.5. Likewise 'B' represents for 'Good' and the base mark was 60 to 80. 'C' represents 'Average' with the base mark of 40 to 60. 'D' represents 'Below Average' and has the base of marks of below 40. 'E' stands for 'Not Demonstrated' and base mark are '0' for this. Further, it is stated that in view of Clause -11 (i) read with Clause 11 (iii) of Rules, 2010 a Committee was constituted for the purpose of promotion. The said committee recommended to the Appointing Authority the list of employees who were eligible to get promotion as per the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2010.