SANTOSH SHERRY Vs. RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was filed by petitioner Smt. Santosh Sherry way back on 26/8/1996 inter-alia with the prayer that the order passed by the respondent- Rajasthan Financial Corporation (for short, RFC on 17/8/1996 promoting her juniors respondents No. 2 to 4 by superseding her may be quashed and set aside and the respondent-RFC may be directed to promote her on the post of Manager from the date above referred to respondents No. 2 to 4 were promoted, with all consequential benefits and be further directed to redesignate petitioner on the post of Deputy Manager (Stagnation) in the pay scale of 3200-4625 from the date such pay scale was granted to so many of her juniors, with all the consequential benefits. It is also prayed that interest @24% p.a. be awarded to the petitioner with the consequential benefits referred to above.

(2.) Factual matrix of the case is that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Junior Assistant with the respondents on 17/6/1972. Later on, she was promoted on the post of Assistant Manager on 24/11/1980. Petitioner then was promoted to the post of Deputy Manager, on ad hoc basis vide order dated 7/12/1983. It was thereafter that petitioner was promoted as Deputy Manager on substantive basis on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee vide order dated 17/11/1986 against the quota of the year 1983-84. Respondent-RFC published seniority lists of Deputy Manager working with them on 1/4/1995 and 1/4/1996, respectively. Last seniority list was issued on 29/6/1996, in which, name of the petitioner was included at Sr. No. 13 whereas, names of respondent No. 2, Shri S.N. Gupta, respondent No. 3 A.S. Mathur and respondent No. 4 J.N. Sharma were shown at Sr. Nos. 14, 15 and 16, respectively below the name of the petitioner in that seniority list. They were also promoted on the post of Deputy Manager against the quota of the year 1983-84. Cause of grievance for the petitioner arose when respondent-RFC promoted private respondents No. 2 to 4 on the post of Manager against the quota of the year 1996-97 vide order dated 17/8/1996 whereas, petitioner was left out and superseded by her above named juniors. Petitioner further felt aggrieved by non-grant of status to her of the post of Deputy Manager (Stagnation) in the pay scale of 3200-4625 whereas, Board of Directors of the RFC has taken a decision on 30/5/1996 to grant such higher grade of pay scale to all those Deputy Managers, who had rendered 12 years of service on substantive basis and had satisfactory service record. Several of juniors of petitioner were granted such higher grade on 23/10/1996. Petitioner was eventually promoted on the post of Manager against the quota of the year 2005-06 vide order dated 29/6/2006 during the pendency of the present writ petition. Another significant development which took place in between was that petitioner sought voluntary retirement on 20/11/2006 which respondent-RFC granted on her application vide order dated 27/11/2006 thus, petitioner stood voluntarily retired from service w.e.f. 30/11/2006.

(3.) Shri Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner has argued that supersession of the petitioner was wholly illegal inasmuch as, she was denied reasonable consideration for promotion. The criteria for promotion to the post of Manager was seniority subject to suitability . According to this criteria, a junior person cannot be promoted giving undue weightage to merit over seniority. It was argued that this criteria of seniority subject to suitability is totally a different criteria than the criteria of seniority- cummerit or merit-cum-seniority which came to be interpreted by this Court in G.S. Rajawat Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation & Ors. : 1993 (1) WLC (Raj.) 117. On the strength of this judgment, learned counsel for petitioner argued that merit alone cannot out weigh seniority, criteria being seniority subject to suitability and a senior cannot be ignored only on that count. Learned counsel has also relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Valsala Kumari Devi M. Vs. Director, higher Secondary Education & Ors. : (2007) 8 SCC 533 : JT 2007 (11) SC 305 in which, it was held that on the basis of the criteria of seniority and suitability , suitability has to be understood in the context of fulfilling the qualification and experience, etc. meaning thereby, comparative suitability of candidate has no role to play. It was argued that the order issued by the Rajasthan Financial Corporation dated 23/10/1996 denying the higher grade of pay of the redesignated post of Deputy Manager (Stagnation) to the petitioner was illegal. Petitioner was thus accorded a hostile discriminatory treatment inasmuch as, she had completed requisite and essential 12 years of service on the substantive post and had satisfactory service record with no departmental enquiry being pending against her therefore, she could not be denied such benefit whereas, at the same time, her juniors were granted upgraded scale of pay. Learned counsel relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India & Others Vs. N.P. Dhamania & Others : 1995 Supp (1) SCC 1 and State Bank of India etc. Vs. Kashinath Kher and others : AIR 1996 SC 1328 argued that the authorities were under obligation to assign reason to substantiate their stand for superseding/ignoring case of the petitioner for promotion.