SUDHIR KUMAR JHA Vs. SAMASTIPUR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) BOTH the petitioners are aggrieved because while granting promotions from the post of Clerk -cum -Cashier to the post of Junior Management Grade Scale -I, the respondent -Bank has given a go -by to the Rule of seniority -cum -merit. They submit that the promotion order contained in Annexure -7 dated 1.2.2005 is in breach of not only the rule but also the law which has been 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 July, 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 -I post and for the same the necessary parameters have been laid down. Rule states that for promotions from the clerical grade to Scale -I all eligible candidates must sit for a written test which shall comprise of two parts of 35 marks each. The two papers are English and Banking Law and Practice & Procedure. 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 10 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 '. Petitioners have brought on record Annexure -3 which is the seniority list issued as on 31.3.2004. In the seniority list name of petitioner no. 1 figures at sl. no. 25 and that of petitioner no. 2 at sl. no. 45. Respondent No. 4 is at sl. no. 61 and the other two respondents figure down below and belong to scheduled caste category. Results were announced after the written examination, ten persons qualified, the details are available in Annexure -6. Seven posts were available for general category and three posts for scheduled caste category. The respondents finally issued promotion order dated 1.2.2005. This promotion order has been brought on record as Annexure -7 and one of the impugned order. Since two petitioners did not find their name in the list of promoted officials they have filed the present writ application challenging the decision.

(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 57% 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 57%. Based on this benchmark five people were declared promoted. Respondent No. 4 is in the general category and admittedly junior to these two petitioners. Since respondents no. 5 and 6 belong to scheduled caste category, these petitioners have no quarrel against them as such. 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 57% 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.