KUMUD RANJAN Vs. MUNGER KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in these three writ petitions relates to promotion in the Munger Kshetriya Gramin Bank and involves the interpretation of the 'seniority -cum merit' rule in the context of the circulars and rules governing such promotion.

(2.) There are two petitioners in CWJC No 5886/87 and one each in CWJC No. 26/ 88 and CWJC No 5927/90. The petitioners in CWJC Nos. 5886/87 and 5927/90 are Field Supervisors in the Munger Kshetriya Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank') They are aggrieved by their supersession by respondents 4 to 11 in the matter of promotion in the Officer's cadre i.e. the post of Branch Manager. The petitioner in CWJC No. 26/88 is Clerk -cum -Cashier. He was denied promotion to the post of Field Supervisor while as many as 30 persons were promoted to the post. Those 30 persons were initially impleaded as respondents 4 to 33 but their names were deleted at the time of admission on 20 -1 -88 because the petitioner did not seek cancellation of their promotion. The petitioners' in all these cases in effect and substance seek direction to promote them to the posts of Officer/Field Supervisor, respectively, from the dates their juniors were promoted. It is relevant to mention here that petitioners of CWJC No 5886/87 and CWJC No 26/88 have since been promoted to the respective posts during pendency of the case. Their claim thus now is confined to seniority with those who were promoted earlier. It is not known if petitioner of CWJC No 5927/90 has also been promoted in the meantime.

(3.) The case of the petitioners of CWJC No 5886/87 is somewhat different from that of the other petitioners. It is, therefore, appropriate to separately state their . case. According to them, in terms of Clause 13 of the Staff Service Regulations, 1980 seniority in a particular grade or scale is reckoned with reference to the date of appointment in that grade or scale. Thus having been appointed and also confirmed earlier than the respondents they were to be treated as senior to them. They in fact were shown above the respondents in the seniority list of Field Supervisors. By virtue of their seniority they were entitled to promotion to the post of Officer in terms of the Ad Hoc Promotion Policy of the Bank contained in its circular dated 30 -11 -84 which envisaged promotion to eligible employees on the basis of seniority; however on 10 -2 -87 the Bank issued fresh guidelines as per which promotion was to be made on the basis of seniority -cum -merit. The case of the petitioners is that this was done without previous sanction of the Government of India and without consulting the Sponsor Bank viz. United Commercial Bank and the Reserve Bank of India. The petitioners contend that there were as many as 24 vacancies - in the post of Officer and had the criterion not been changed, they would have been promoted by virtue of their seniority and eligibility but in view of the guidelines, which was given retrospective effect from 31 -12 -84, promotion was denied to them while respondents 4 to 11, admittedly junior to them, were promoted. It is contended that the promotion rules cannot be amended with a retrospective effect. The grievance of these petitioners as made out in the writ petition is devoid of any substance.