M.R.SHAH, J - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) As common question of law and facts arise in this group of appeals, and as such they arise out of the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, all these appeals are being decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2.1 All these appeals arise out of the impugned common judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh) passed in Writ Appeal Nos. 1510/2007, 1509/2007, 1508/2007, 1511/2007 and 1535/2007, by which the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the said appeals, however, while dismissing the said appeals, modified the order passed by the learned Single Judge and directed that instead of preparing a fresh select list, the establishment would conduct the fresh exercise for promotion, and further directed that the establishment would be obliged to prescribe minimum necessary cut off merit marks out of 100 so that the rule of seniority-cum-merit is made applicable.
(3.) The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under: The dispute is with respect to promotion to the post of Junior Management Scale II in the Mahakoshal Kshetriya Bank. That in exercise of powers conferred under Section 29 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, the Central Government, in consultation with National Bank and the Sponsor Bank, i.e., the UCO Bank, formulated the Rules called Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). That the said Rules were notified in the gazette on 29.07.1998. Third Schedule of the aforesaid Rules, inter alia, provides for appointment of two different categories of officers. It also provides for eligibility as well as mode of selection in respect thereto. As regards Scale II officers, it was specifically provided that the source of appointment shall be 100% by promotion and the criterion for promotion shall be on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. That mode of selection was that the candidate shall be selected by a committee on the basis of written test, interview and the assessment of 'performance appraisal reports' for the preceding five years as officer in Scale I/Field Supervisor. The division of marks was as follows: JUDGEMENT_42_LAWS(SC)4_2019_1.html 3.1 As regards written test, it provided that the candidate shall be required to appear for written test comprising of two parts, viz., Part 'A' and Part 'B'. The 60 marks allotted to written test were further divided as : JUDGEMENT_42_LAWS(SC)4_2019_2.html 3.2 As per the aforesaid rules, a list of only those candidates who secure minimum 40% of marks in each part (Part 'A and Part 'B') shall be prepared and shall be called for interview. As regards interview and 'performance appraisal reports' for preceding five years' service, under the rules, no minimum qualifying marks were provided. 3.3 The respondent-bank for the purpose of promotion from Scale I to Scale II issued a memo dated 30.03.2004 and informed all the Branch Managers and all the departments of the Head Office to submit 'performance appraisal reports' of preceding five years' of Scale I officers. The bank also issued guidelines in consonance with the Rules, vide guidelines dated 12.04.2004. 3.4 For promotion of Scale I officers to the available 16 posts of Scale II, the Bank called 64 candidates/officers in the ratio of 1:4. The written test was conducted on 16.04.2004 and 32 candidates out of 64 were declared qualified in the written test, as it was found that they secured more than 40% marks in the written examination. That thereafter, the appellants along with other eligible candidates (32 in numbers) appeared in the interview conducted on 18/19.09.2004. That vide memo dated 09.10.2004, the bank published the results of successful officers/candidates shown to have been promoted to Scale II posts. That the appellants herein who were also placed in the seniority list came to be promoted, by virtue of their seniority, having secured more than minimum marks in the written test and having passed the interview and performance appraisals. However, it appears that three persons, namely, Sunil Kumar Gupta, Gopal Singh Raj and Rajesh Kumar Jain (respondents herein), though much junior in the seniority list of Scale I officers, were also included in the list of promoted officers, issued vide memo dated 9.10.2004 and three senior persons were ignored, namely, Anil Kumar Singh, K.C. Soni and N.K. Sharma. Therefore, the aforesaid three persons, namely, Anil Kumar Singh, K.C. Soni and N.K. Sharma and one another, namely, Praveen K. Jaggi filed Writ Petition Nos. 12127/2004,12125/2004, 12126/2004 and 11005/2004 challenging the order dated 09.10.2004 whereby the aforesaid three persons, namely, Sunil Kumar Gupta, Gopal Singh Raj and Rajesh Kumar Jain were placed below Anil Kumar Singh, K.C. Soni and N.K. Sharma in the seniority list. Before the learned single Judge, it was the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners that promotions to the post of Scale II were solely on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and the rules provide that only those candidates who secure minimum 40% marks in the written test shall be called for interview and there being no minimum qualifying marks provided so far as marks obtained in interview and performance appraisal reports and therefore the original writ petitioners being senior and they obtained more than 40% marks in the written test, they ought to have been promoted to the post of Scale II. 3.5 However, it was the case on behalf of the bank that as per the administrative instructions, a conscious decision was taken by the Selection Committee fixing the bench mark of minimum 12 marks to be secured in the interview as well as performance appraisals (each) and only those candidates who secured in all 24 marks in minimum in the interview as well as the performance appraisals were required to be considered for promotion and accordingly those candidates who secured 24 marks minimum in the interview as well as the performance appraisals were promoted. ;