K K GARG Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner a Manager in the Punjab National Bank is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in withholding his promotion in spite of the fact that he was selected by the competent authority.

(2.) A brief reference to the actual position is necessary. The petitioner joined the service of the Punjab National Bank in January, 1968. With effect from January 17, 1983 he was appointed as Manager in the Middle Management Grade Scale II (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scale-II').

(3.) In accordance with the provisions of the statutory regulations called the "Punjab National Bank Officers Service Regulations 1979" (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'), the Bank framed a promotion policy, which was circulated vide letter dated February 22, 1988. This policy was partially modified by the Board of the Bank in its meeting held on May 31, 1989. The amended policy was circulated vide letter dated June 8, 1989. By this policy, it was inter alia provided that there would be two channels for promotion from Scale II to Scale III. 40% of the vacancies were to be filled on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and the remaining 60% were to be filled up by the method of selection. Officers with a minimum of five years' satisfactory service in Scale-II were eligible for competing against the posts in Channel-II viz. 60% of the total vacancies. The selection had to be made by a process given in the promotion policy. The claim of the petitioner was considered in accordance with the provisions of the policy and according to him he was placed at Sr. No. 2 in the panel of 34 candidates selected by the competent authority. In spite of his selection, the petitioner was not appointed while persons, who were below him in order of merit at Sr. No. 3 to 34 were actually promotion. The petitioner submitted representations. Having failed to achieve the desired result, he filed the present petition, challenging the action of the respondents in not appointing him to Scale-III, while persons below him in order of merit had been promoted. The petitioner has alleged that the action was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.