PANKAJ KUMAR Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-Punjab National Bank and its officials. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 10.5.2012 passed by the Chief Manager, Circle Office, Patna (H.R.D. Department), Punjab National Bank, the appellate authority whereby rejection of the petitioner's appeal seeking promotion to 'the post of S.M.G.-IV scale to M.M.G.-III scale in the bank has been communicated. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 4530 of 2012 seeking the following reliefs:---

(2.) The said writ application was disposed by an order dated 26.3.2012 with a direction to the appellate authority to consider the claim of the petitioner and decide the appeal in accordance with law. It is in this circumstance that pursuant to this Court's order, the petitioner filed a representation on 3.4.2012 before the Chair-man-cum-Managing Director, Punjab National Bank, New Delhi raising grievance that for the purpose of said promotion, in the process of selection he was not awarded marks which he deserved against written test, interview, performance and branch experience. He took the plea that he had in fact secured 63 marks in the written test, 12 marks in interview whereas assessment has been done treating the marks for written test to be 53 and marks for the interview to be 10. He also took the plea that his performance was not duly evaluated by the Selection Committee and was awarded 45.72 marks though he deserved more marks. He also took a plea that he was wrongly awarded zero marks against branch experience though he had branch experience for several years. Taking a plea that the petitioner could not have been blamed for lack of branch experience during last five years from the date of the petitioner's consideration for such promotion as it was not within his choice to be posted at a branch or in the administration office. It is in light of this Court's order dated 26.3.2012 and the petitioner's said representation dated 3.4.2012 that the impugned letter dated 10.5.2012 has been issued which reads thus:---

(3.) The letter dated 10.5.2012 communicating rejection of the petitioner's appeal, cannot be said to be speaking as no reason has been assigned as to why the petitioner's appeal/representation raising his claim as referred to did not find favour with the appellate authority or the appellate committee. This Court vide order dated 26.3.2012 had directed the appellate authority to consider the claim of the petitioner and decide. In such circumstance, it was incumbent upon the appellate authority to have passed a speaking order which must have reflected due application of mind and consideration of the petitioner's appeal/representation, dealing with the points/grounds raised in such appeal/representation.