R.P.AGGARWAL Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order must be seen as in continuation of the facts elicited through my order dated 22.03.2012 except for a minor modification that in para 2 of the order I have wrongly observed that on one occasion leave had been sanctioned and on another occasion a post-facto sanction had been accorded. Both the counsel would agree that it was erroneous and that there were "some occasions" where leave had been sanctioned and. "on some other occasions" a post-facto sanction had been accorded and the same shall be read as such. The point revolves on the right of consideration for promotion of a person, who admittedly had no adverse ACRs nor was he proceeded with departmentally for any misconduct during the relevant time when the consideration for promotion was undertaken. The point hinges of whether leave that he had obtained in the years 1993 and 1994 for a period of about 47 days that registered a note in the mark sheet for departmental qualifying test for promotion that his leave record was not satisfactory could be put against the petitioner denying to him the promotion for that year.

(2.) The learned senior counsel Mr. Atma Ram refers me to the promotion policy that existed, which contained a specific reference to the satisfactory service record that would still have a bearing to enlisting successful candidates for promotion. The relevant clause in the promotion policy of the year 1972 is reproduced her:

(3.) This is contested by the counsel appearing on behalf of the bank Ms. Suri by a reference to the fact that the modified policy would only to the extent to which, there could be any Inconsistency. The original provision for the manner of enlistment of successful candidates with a provision as contained in 111(a) that declared a person fit for promotion whose service record was found to be 'not unsatisfactory' must be taken as still relevant for consideration, even after the modified policy was brought. The counsel would argue that the unsatisfactory leave record had been brought to the attention of the petitioner through a notice issued on 18.01.1995 and still later on 13.09.1995, and he had himself responded on 26.09.1995 that he had improved his leave record and that he could be considered for promotion.