LALAN KUMAR CHAUDHARY Vs. BHOJPUR ROHTAS GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks to challenge the seniority list of the Officers in the Middle Management Group of the respondent Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as `the Bank). It is the claim of the petitioner that he was selected by the Bank for direct recruitment in the Middle Management Group along with several others. In the merit list of the selected candidates the petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 4. He was, therefore, on appointment, entitled to seniority amongst the 15-2-1985 Batch Officers at Sl. No. 4. However, in the impugned seniority list published on 09-09-1997 the petitioner has been placed at the bottom of the 15-2-1985 Batch at Sl. No. 129 instead of his rightful placement above one Sri Anjani Kumar Srivastava at Sl. No. 98. As averred in the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed on probation for a period of two years from 15.02.1985 to 15.02.1987.

(2.) HOWEVER, the period of probation was extended on the ground that performance of the petitioner was not found satisfactory. He was confirmed in service on 09.03.1988. The petitioners placement in the seniority list at the bottom of his batch-mates is in accordance with Regulation 13(3) of the Bhojpur-Rohtas Gramin Bank Staff Service Regulations, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as `the Regulations). According to the petitioner, the said Regulation 13(3) of the Regulations is arbitrary and offends Articles 14, 16(1) and 20(2) of the Constitution of India. It is further averred that the petitioner had made a representation in respect of the said seniority. According to the petitioner, he has suffered double jeopardy on account of the action of the Bank first, he had to suffer extended period of probation; and second, he had to lose seniority against his batch-mates. Learned Advocate Mr. Shailendra Kumar Sinha has appeared for the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner had to take leave on account of sickness. Because of the 23 days leave taken by the petitioner, the period of probation was extended by one year. He has submitted that in view of the pending representation made by the petitioner the petitioner did not approach this Court earlier. He has further submitted that as the petitioner seeks his rightful placement in the seniority list, the persons above whom he seeks seniority are neither necessary nor proper party to this petition. The petitioner can be granted relief in their absence. In support of his argument he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matters of Jagdish Prasad Shrivastava vs. The Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank through its Chairman & Ors. [2002 (3) PLJR 130], Arun Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through the Health Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar, Patna & Ors. (1970 PLJR 490) and of the Supreme Court in the matter of A. Janardhana vs. Union of India & Ors. (AIR 1983 SC 769).

(3.) SECOND, the loss of seniority by operation of Rule of Law cannot be said to be arbitrary. More particularly in the present case the petitioner has admitted that the Bank had extended the probation period of the petitioner on the post of officer by one year on the ground that the performance of the petitioner was not found satisfactory. Though it is orally submitted before us it is not the plea of the petitioner that the period of probation was extended on account of his leave on medical ground. Evidently, such a plea is raised orally to avail of the benefit of the observations made in the judgment of Jagdish Prasad Shrivastava (supra). As the petitioners probation had to be extended on account of his unsatisfactory conduct, it is not possible to read down Regulation 13(3) of the Regulations as has been done in the case of Jagdish Prasad Shrivastava (supra). Moreover, in our view, the petition is grossly belated. The bald explanation that the petitioner had made a representation is not palatable. The statement is not supported by any evidence. No other contention is raised before us. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. The parties will bear their own cost.