Aftab Alam, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) A dispute over promotion to the post of Chief Manager, Rajbhasha in Senior Manager Grade, Scale IV in the Central Bank of India has brought this matter to this Court. Respondent No.5 was granted promotion to the post on 19 May 1997 in preference to the Appellant. He challenged the promotion given to the respondent before the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 1412 of 1997. The High Court dismissed the writ petition by judgment and order dated 24 November 2006. This appeal is filed against the judgment of the High Court.
(3.) It would be useful to state at the beginning certain basic facts that are admitted or are, at any rate, undeniable as that would keep us from straying into issues that have no relevance to the dispute giving rise to this appeal. The promotion from Middle Management Grade (Scale III) to Senior Management Grade (Scale IV) is made on the principle of merit-cum seniority from among officers who have completed five years' satisfactory service in MMG scale III. The Bank's Promotion Policy for Officers in clause 3.3 provides as follows. "3.3. Promotion from Middle Management Grade Scale III to Senior Management Grade Scale IV - For promotion from Middle Management Grade Scale III to Senior Management Grade Scale IV, an officer should have completed a minimum of 5 years of satisfactory service in Middle Management Grade Scale III." The selection from among the eligible candidates, i.e., officers who have completed the qualifying service of five years in MMG Scale III is made on, the basis of an interview and annual Performance Appraisal Ratings for three preceding years. For the promotion in question, the appellant and respondent No. 5, both of whom had completed five years' qualifying service in MMG Scale III were assessed in the same way. In the interview both the appellant and respondent No.5 were awarded 30 marks. In the annual PARs, however, though the appellant had 'Very Good', same as respondent No.5 for the year 1994-95, for the other two years 1995-96 and 1996-97 he had only 'Good' against 'Very Good' obtained by respondent No.5. The remark 'Very Good' carried 32 marks and 'Good' 24 marks. Thus the Performance Appraisal Ratings of the appellant averaged out to 26.6 and that of respondent No.5 to 32. In this way, out of 100 the appellant had 56.6 marks as against 62.0 secured by respondent No.5. Respondent No.5 was accordingly selected and promoted to the post.;