UDAI KUMAR MEHTA Vs. SAMASTIPUR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) THERE are four petitioners in this writ application who are aggrieved because while granting promotions from the post of Junior Management Grade -Scale -I Officer (JMG -S -I) to the post of Medium Management Grade -Scale -II Officer (MMG -S -II), the respondent Bank has given a go -by to the rule of 'seniority -cum -merit '. Their contention is that the promotion order contained in Annexure -6 dated 1.2.2005 is in breach of not only the rule but also the law laid down in this regard by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India. Some basic facts, however, are not in dispute. The Ministry of Finance, Banking Division issued a notification dated 29th Juiy 1998. By virtue of this notification a new rule known as the 1998 Rules was brought into existence. The Rule is called the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1988. The 1998 notification is an amendment and is loosely referred to as the 1998 Rules. In the present case our concern is with regard to promotion on the Scale -ll post and for the same the necessary parameters have been laid down. Rule states that for promotions from Scale -I to Scale -ll ail eligible candidates must sit for a written test which shall comprise of two parts of 30 marks each. The two papers are (A) Coverig Banking Law and Practice of Banking and (B) Covering credit policy, Credit Management including Priority Sector, Economics and Management. The Rule envisages that a candidate must obtain minimum of 40% marks in the written examination. Thereafter interview of 20 marks and performance appraisal of 20 marks are also to be taken into consideration. One thing which, however, must be taken note of is that the promotion rule is based on the principle of 'seniority -cum -merit '.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners finds fault with the promotion order because they say that the Bank committed an illegality by fixing a minimum of 55% as a benchmark after the entire selection process was over. From the evidence which has been brought on record by way of a counter affidavit, it is apparent that the Board of Directors of the Bank before opening the list of successful candidates and declaring the promotions decided in its meeting dated 1.2.2005 to fix the said benchmark of 55%. Based on this benchmark 34 people were declared promoted. Petitioners contend that admittedly persons junior to them in the seniority list have been granted promotion by violating the principles of 'seniority -cum -merit '. Petitioners find fault with the decision of the Board of Directors because there cannot be a benchmark after the entire process of selection was over and there cannot be two benchmarks as such because the 1998 amended rules already envisages a basic benchmark, which is 40% in the written examination. The contention of the petitioners are that by fixing this 55% benchmark the respondent authorities have again turned the principle of 'seniority -cum -merit ' on its head and made it into 'merit -cum - seniority '. Respondents have carried out a comparative assessment of all the candidates irrespective of their seniority and thereafter based on the marks, which they have obtained under the three heads results have been announced.