STATE BANK OF PATIALA Vs. GIAN CHAND GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GIAN Chand Garg, the present respondent approached this Court through a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. His grievance was that he had been wrongly debarred from appearing in the test conducted by the Bank on September 20, 1987 for promotion of officers from Junior Management Grade Scale I to Middle Management Grade Scale II. The learned single Judge found that Mr. Garg had been wrongly debarred from appearing in the test. Consequently, it was ordered that he shall be deemed to have cleared the test from appearing in which he was wrongfully debarred. On this basis, the Bank had been directed to promote him to Middle Management Grade Scale II w. e. f. August 1, 1985 like those who appeared in the test and cleared it. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned single Judge, the Bank has filed this appeal.

(2.) MR. C. B. Goel, learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out that the name of the respondent-writ petitioner had been duly included in the list of eligible candidates who were to appear in the test scheduled for September 20, 1987. In fact, his name was at Sr. No. 133 in the list notified by the Bank on May 22, 1987. However, while doing so, the Bank had overlooked the fact that in the year 1984, the petitioner had been found absent from the office on two occasions viz. September 26, 1984 and October 15, 1984. Still further, it was noticed that the keys of two Branch almirahs containing ledgers and registers etc. were allowed to remain in the custody of the Daftri of the Branch. On the basis of these lapses, a notice was issued to the respondent and after consideration of the matter, he was 'censured' vide order dated December 19, 1986. In view of the order of censure, it was felt that the respondent was not eligible to appear in the test which was being conducted to fill up the posts that had occurred upto August 1, 1985. Besides the factual position, learned counsel has also contended that a person who has not even appeared in the test cannot be deemed to have appeared and qualified by any process of law or logic. Accordingly, the counsel submits that the view taken by the learned single Judge cannot be sustained.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. M. M. Kumar, counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner has contended that having joined service in the year 1978, he had become eligible for competing for promotion to the posts in the middle Management Grade Scale II, The mere fact that certain lapses had been noticed or that even an order of censure had been passed, did not (sic) disqualiy the officer from appearing in the competitive selection. Learned counsel emphasises that the Bank was filling up the vacancies which had occurred upto August 1, 1985 and an order of censure passed in December 1986 could not have furnished a valid basis for ignoring him.