STATE BANK OF PATIALA Vs. DHARAM PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this revision petition are that respondent No. 1 is an officer in the State Bank of Patiala in the category of MMGS-II. Respondents No. 8 to 47 appeared to have been promoted to MMGS-III in persuance of the certain promotion policy. Respondent No. J has instituted a suit which is pending in the Court of Subordinate Judge III Class, Patiala. In the suit, the same respondent has sought a declaration that the promotion policy in question is illegal, null and void and that the promotions of respondents No. 2 to 47 in persuance of the said policy was also illegal and void. He has further sought a declaration that the plaintiff (respondent No. 1) be declared promoted to MMGS-III with effect from 1. 8. 1990, the date from which the private respondents No. 2 to 47 had been promoted. The Bank is contesting the suit. Issues have been framed. The plaintiff got summoned Mr. Prabhu Dayal, General Manager, (Planning and Development) of the said Bank alongwith guidlines relating to the promotion policy in question. On receipt of the summons, an application was moved on behalf of the said Bank praying that the summons be recalled as Mr. Prabhu Dayal had nothing to do with the case in question. He was not dealing with the promotions etc, and was not looking after the Personnel Department. It was further submitted that the plaintiff had got the summons issued merely to cause harassment and inconvenience to the Bank management in general and Mr. Prabhu Dayal in particular. The application was resisted by respondent No 1. It was rejected by the trial Court by order dated 17. 12. 1991. Hence this revision.

(2.) NOTICE of the revision was duly served on respondent No. 1. He failed to put in appearance and was proceeded ex parte.

(3.) MR. Vijay Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner; made as two-fold submission. Firstly, he contended that the prayer for summoning Mr. Prabhu Dayal was not bonafide and the same was calculated to cause him harassment and inconvenience and secondly the-documents sought to be summoned were not relevant and admissible as the plaintiff had no unlimited right to summon the record relating to the selection of respondents No. 2 to 47.