SUMAN DEY Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.K. Kalita, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K.R. Borooah, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is presently working in the post of Senior Manager, Law (Grade-II), has prayed for the following reliefs:

(3.) The case projected by the petitioner is that while preparing for departmental promotion exercise from Senior Manager, Law (Grade-II) to Senior Manager, Law (Grade-III), he had come across the advertisement dated 12.02.2019 for direct recruitment of Technical Officer, by way of which 55 (fifty five) posts of Senior Manager, Law (Scale-III) were sought to be filled up. It is submitted that in the previous promotional process, results were declared on 01.04.2019 and the petitioner did not qualify. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not assailed the previous promotional exercise that had culminated on 01.04.2019, but he has challenged the advertisement for direct recruitment dated 12.02.2019, inter alia, on the ground that the posts of Senior Manager, Law (Scale-III) by way of direct recruitment and promotion had to be filled up in the ratio of 50:50. It is submitted that while 55 numbers of fresh vacancy and 2 previous vacancies, i.e. 57 (fifty seven) vacant posts of Senior Manager, Law (Scale-III) was to be filled up, the respondents had earmarked only 2 (two) vacant posts for being filled up by way of promotion. Accordingly, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are trying to fill up the vacant posts of Senior Manager, Law (Scale-III) at their whims and fancies without maintaining any ratio of filling up such posts by way of direct recruitment and promotion. It is submitted that if the promotional posts are not earmarked, the petitioner and others, who are expecting their promotion would never get a promotion to Scale-III level. Accordingly, the petitioner has sought for relief in terms of prayers as indicated herein before. In support of his submissions that there must be a quota for direct recruitment and for filling up posts on promotion, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case of S.G. Jaisinghani vs Union of India , 1967 AIR(SC) 1427.