- (1.) THE Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and oTHEr Employees) Rules, 1998 read with second respondent's circular No.PAD/47/98-99 dated 16.12.1998 as ultra vires and null and void.) With THE grievance that THE promotion policy of THE second respondent Bank (vide circular PAD/47/98-99 dated 16.12.1998) follows THE principle "merit-cum-seniority", instead of "seniority-cum-merit" in THE matter of promotion of officers, THE petitioner-Union is before this Court with this writ petition.
(2.) THE Government of India, Ministry of Finance, by notification dated 29.7.1998, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 29 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 read with Section 17 thereof and in super session of the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other employees) Rules, 1988, after consultation with the National Bank and the sponsor Banks specified in the Second Schedule to the Rules, made the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Other Employees) Rules, 1998. As per the said Rules, appointment to the post of Scale III Officer shall be made only by promotion and such promotion shall be made on the basis of "seniority-cum-merit". Similarly, in respect of appointment to the post of Scale II Officer also, it shall be only by promotion and the same shall be made on the basis of "seniority-cum-merit". Insofar as Scale III Officers are concerned, the selection shall be on the basis of performance in the interview and Performance Appraisal Reports for preceding five years as per the division of marks, viz. 25 marks for interview and 75 marks for Performance Appraisal Report. Similarly, for Scale II Officers, the selection shall be on the basis of performance in the written test, interview and Performance Appraisal Reports for preceding five years as per the division of marks, viz. 60 marks for written test, 20 marks for interview and 20 marks for Performance Appraisal Report.
(3.) IN pursuance of the said Rules, the second respondent issued the impugned promotion policy dated 16.12.1998. Clause 1 of the said policy is thus: "Basis of Promotion: Promotion shall be made on the basis of "seniority cum merit".The mode of selection for Scale I Officers is prescribed in Clause 3 which is as follows:"The selection of the candidates shall be made by the Committee on the basis of written test, interview and assessment of performance appraisal reports for the preceding five years as an Officer in Scale I/Field Supervisor."Clause 7 prescribes the selection process for promotion, as under:(a) Written Test : 60 marks(b) INterview : 20 marks(c) Performance : 20 marks Total : 100 marks A) Written Test : The candidates shall (60 marks) required to appear for written test comprising of two parts, viz. PART (A) Covering Banking Law and practice of Banking and PART (B) Covering Credit Policy, Credit Management including priority sector, economics and Management. 60 Marks allotted to written test shall be further divided as under:Part A : 30 marksPart B : 30 marksA list of only those candidates who secure a minimum of 40% marks in each part shall be prepared and such candidates shall be called for interview.B) INterview : There shall be no (20 Marks) minimum qualification marks for the interviewC) Performance : Performance Appraisal Reports for the preceding (20 marks) five years shall be considered for the purpose of awarding marks For promotion.Clause 10 prescribes the Selection List as under:"The select list of officers drawn by the Committee shall be based on seniority in their immediately proceeding scale or cadre to which they belong in Bank's service.". The said promotion policy is challenged in this writ petition mainly on the ground that it prescribes promotion only on the basis of merit and seniority is not given due consideration. This, according to the petitioner, is against the Regional Rural banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1988 as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.V. Sivaiah v. K.Addanki Babu [(1998) 6 SCC 720]. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if merit alone is taken as criteria, then, the seniority will have no relevance and as such, the senior people will never get an opportunity for promotion. He would rely on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Harigovind Yadav v. Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank [(2006) 6 SCC 145] also.;