M L SETHI Vs. U C O BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner who is serving in the respondent-Bank joined the service of the Bank as Clerk in the year 1965. The petitioner claims that he earned a number of promotions and is presently working as Assistant Chief Officer in Middle Management Scale II. He was promoted to this post on 1.7.1983. He has contended that throughout his service he has always worked to the satisfaction of his superiors and earned a number of appreciation letters from them.

(2.) A policy for various promotions in various scales was announced by the respondents in October, 1987, for the post created or falling vacant in 1986. For the purpose of promotion, the respondents were to consider the performance appraisal reports of the eligible candidates for the year 1984, 1985 and 1986.'The petitioner contends that he was eligible to be promoted from Middle Management Scale II to Middle Management Scale III. Because the interviews were delayed, the respondents also decided to see the reports of the candidates for the year 1987 which were submitted by the petitioner. Vide Bank letter, annexure P/3, dated 11.12.1987, the cut-off date for determining the eligibility for promotion was shifted from 31.12.1986 to 31.10.1987. It is further mentioned in that letter that the marks for seniority, qualifications and performance for promotion shall be determined as on 31.12.1986. It is further mentioned that the panels for promotion to Scale II, in and IV would be valid upto 31.12.1988.

(3.) According to the petitioner in certain cases where the punishment has been awarded after the cut-off date or the disciplinary proceedings were pending on the date of declaration of result, the respondents have granted promotion whereby the petitioner has been discriminated qua those persons. The petitioner further contends that interviews for promotion from Middle Management Scale II to Middle Management Scale III were held on 21.4.1988 and the result of the same was declared in September, 1988. The petitioner contends that he secured 71 marks in aggregate against the last selected person who secured 70 marks. The result of the petitioner was sent to respondent No.2 and the same was communicated to the petitioner by him. However, the result was later on withdrawn and sent back to the Head Office to be kept in the sealed cover on the ground that some disciplinary proceedings were pending against the petitioner.