GIAN SINGH NEGI Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ petition has been filed jointly by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioners is that petitioners No. 1 and 2 were eligible for being called to undertake the test for promotion which was held even as early as on October 23, 1988 for promotion to officers JMGS I Cadre and similarly all the petitioners became eligible for being considered for promotion with effect from August 1, 1992 for which the test was said to have been held on March 14, 1993 and that their claims were not properly considered and countenanced as was expected, in accordance with law. The case of the petitioners is that in the selection for promotion held for the year 1988, the claims of petitioners No. 1 and 2 came to be ignored and their rights denied on account of, what the petitioners would contend, to be due to the omission in preparing separate merit list in accordance with their proportionate percentage of reservation of post and the infirmity or error committed in preparing a joint merit list of SC and ST candidates. This procedure was said to be not only illegal and opposed to the relevant orders of the Government of India but also the circular order of the respondent Bank. In support of such grievance it is also claimed that for the year 1988 and in respect of the written test held on October 23, 1988 the claims of persons including petitioners No. 1 and 2 ought to have been considered keeping in view the fact that 44 posts were required to be filled up from out of the reservation meant for ST Candidates but that they were not even allowed to take the written test.

(3.) NOTICE has been ordered to the respondents and the respondents have filed a reply. There is no controversy between the parties about the percentage of reservation meant for the ST category candidates or the circular orders applicable to the case. While dealing with the claim asserted for petitioners No. 1 and 2 for the year 1988, the respondents have stated in their reply as follows;