- (1.) PRAFULLA C. Pant, J. By means of above three writ petitions, the petitioners who are Scale I officers, have challenged the selection process for promotions to Scale II in the Alaknanda Gramin Bank Ltd. , Pauri Garhwal, for its vari ous branches in Uttaranchal.
(2.) WE heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The petitioners were ap pointed in Group-A posts of Scale I by direct recruitment and were posted in different branches of Alaknanda Gramin Bank. Their promotions are governed by Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Of ficers and other Employees) Rules, 1998. Petitioner in Writ petition No. 332 of 2003 has challenged the pro motion order dated 30-04-2003 (Annexure-8 to said writ petition) whereby Shri Krishna Chand Singh, Shri Sunil Mishra and Shri Sunil Dutt Bhatt who were junior to him at the time of his appointment in the senior ity list. The six petitioners in writ pe tition No. 602 of 2003, have also challenged the selection process of the promotions to. Scale-II by re spondent/ bank and sought the pro motions of respondents No. 3 to 14 in said writ petition, be quashed. Ac cording to these petitioners, following number of posts in Scale-II were va cant for promotions in the years 1999 to 2003 :- 1) 1999 - 3 posts 2) 2000 - 5 posts 3) 2001 - Nil 4) 2002 - 4 posts 5 2003 - 8 posts Respondents- Shri Krishna Chandra Singh Bisht, Shri Sunil Kumar Mishra and Shri Sunil Dutt Bhatt were promoted against the va cancies of the year 1999. Respond ents- Shri Girish Chandra Pant, Shri Prakash Chandra Bughani, Shri Lalita Prasad Dandriyal, Shri Krishna Mohan Sharma and Shri Guru Dayal Singh, were promoted against the va cancies for the year 2000. Respond ents- Shri Chandi Prasad Pandey, Shri Sanjeey Kumar Gupta, Shri Sanjay Kumar Bhatt and Shri Rajneesh Kumar, were promoted against the vacancies for the year 2002. Petitioners of writ petition No. 220 of 2004 (S/b), have challenged the selection process for the year 2003, whereby respondents No. 3 to 10 namely- Shri Kunj Bihari, Shri Deepak Kainthola, Shri Anil Dobhal, Shri Sukhveer Singh, Shri Sohan Lai, Shri Shailesh Nautiyal, Shri Satendra Negi and Shri Dinesh Dobariyal, were promoted to Scale-II. In all the three petitions, the ground of challenge is the same i. e; the seniority of the petitioners has been ignored in the selection process. Respondent-Bank i. e. Alaknanda Gramin Bank is included in Second Schedule of the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Of ficers and other Employees) Rules, 1998. As such, the said Rules are ap plicable to the Bank. Third Schedule of aforesaid Rules provides the procedure for promotion. For the pur poses of promotion to Scale-II offic ers in Group-A, it is prescribed in said third schedule that the promo tion shall be made on the basis of Seniority Cum Merit. It is further pro vided that officer holding post for eight years as a Officer on regular basis in the Regional Rural Banks, shall be considered for promotion in Scale-II posts in that Bank, provided that no officer shall be considered for promotion unless he has been con firmed in feeder grade cost, provided further that Board may with the prior approval of National Bank relax the qualifying service for a period not exceeding two years if eligible offic ers are not available. It further pro vides that selection of the candidates shall be made by the Committee on the basis of interview and assessment of Performance Appraisal Report for preceding five years as a officer in Scale-I Field Supervisor. The number of candidates to be considered for promotion from Officer Scale I to Of ficer Scale II, shall be restricted to four times the number of vacancies available for promotion. The selec tion shall be on the basis of perform ance in the written test, interview and Performance Appraisal Report for preceding five years as per the divi sion of marks given below : 1) Written Test - 60 marks 2) Interview - 20 marks 3) Performance Appraisal Report - 20 marks Total - 100 marks Schedule 3 of the aforesaid Rules, further provides that the can didates shall be 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- Credit Management including Priority Sector Economics and Management and each part will be of 30 marks. List of only those candidates who secure a minimum of 40 marks in each part, shall be prepared and such candi dates shall be called for interview. 4. Petitioners, challenging the im pugned selection process, have relied on Jagathigowda, C. N. Vs. Chairman, Cauvery Gramina Bank (1996) 9 Su preme Court Cases 677, in which the apex court has held that guidelines issued by National Bank for Agricul tural and Rural Development (NABARD) for promotions, were ap plicable to the promotion in the Re gional Rural Banks. However, said case law does not help the petition ers in the present case, for the rea son that in the case of Cauvery Gramina Bank, the promotions were held prior to enforcement of the Re gional Rural Banks (Appointments and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1998. In our opin ion after the 1998 Rules came into force, the guidelines inconsistent to the rules issued earlier by NABARD, lost its significance.
(3.) NEXT case on which the peti tioners heavily relied is B. V. Sivaiah Vs. K. Addanki Babu (1998) 6 Su preme Court Cases 720. Though this case also pertains to the promotion prior to the period of enforcement of 1998 Rules but expression "seniority Cum Merit" has been explained in said case, whereby it has been made clear that once the bench mark is cleared by a candidate for promotion the senior, even if secured lesser marks in merit, would be promoted first. The relevant para of aforesaid judgment is being quoted below : "we thus arrive at the conclusion that the criterion of 'seniority-cum-merit' in the matter of promotion postulates that given the minimum necessary merit requisite for effi ciency of administration, the sen ior, even though less meritorious, shall have priority and a compara tive assessment of merit is not re quired to be made. For assessing the minimum necessary merit, the competent authority can lay down the minimum standard that is re quired and also prescribe the mode of assessment of merit of the employee who is eligible for consideration for promotion. Such assessment can be made by as signing marks on the basis of ap praisal of performance on the ba sis of service record and interview and prescribing the minimum marks which would entitle a per son to be promoted on the basis of seniority cum merit. " In other words, to apply the principle of "seniority-Cum-Merit", promotions are required to be made not strictly according to the final merit list but according to seniority from amongst the qualified candi dates who have cleared the bench marks of written test and that of in terview. Clause (d) of item No. 2, mentioned in the third schedule of Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1998, clearly pro vides that the promotion shall be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. That being so, the entire pro cedure prescribed thereafter, in said schedule, is to be interpreted" on the basis of principle of seniority cum merit.;