- (1.) DR. B. S. Chauhan, J. This writ petition has been filed for quash ing the promotion list dated 23. 9. 2000 (Annex. 4) insofar as it promotes respon dent Nos. 3 to 5 and ignores the claim of the petitioner, and also for quashing the impugned Circular dated 16. 3. 2000 (Annex. 2) providing for a minimum bench mark for the assessment of minimum merit.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 3 to 5 held the post of Scale-l Officer in the respon dent Bank. All of them being eligible for promotion to the post of Scale-ll Officer were considered. However, the said respondent Nos. 3 to 5 have been promoted though they were admittedly junior to the petitioner. Petitioner has been non suited as he failed to secure the 70% benchmark as provided under the Circular dated 16. 3. 2000. We have heard Shri Bhagwati Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Yashwant Verma for the respondent Bank. The facts are not in dispute. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were junior to the petitioner as in the seniority list, the petitioner's name figured at serial No. 38 whereas the names of the said respondent Nos. 3 to 5 had been shown at serial Nos. 39,40 and 43 respectively. The criteria for promotion as provided under the Rules is seniority-cum-merit. The Circular dated 16th March, 2000 provides that to determine the minimum merit, the performance appraisal for three years would be examined and would be subject to award of a maximum of 70 marks. 30 marks have been assigned for interview. Another condition imposed was that unless a candidate secures 70 out of 100 marks, he shall not be promoted. These marks for assessing the merit had been further sub-divided in four catego ries as under: (a) Relating to business such as deposit targets Cloan targets, loan disbursement and recovery follow-up loans, (b) Correspondence, record keeping, administrative 10 marks control and assistance to Senior Officers (c) Customers service, Industrial Relations etc. (d) Confidentiaf Report
(3.) THE petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were assessed in the year 2000. Petitioner could secure only 46. 45 marks so far as his performance ap praisal for three years was concerned. He was awarded 12 marks in interview and, thus, could obtain a total of 58. 45 marks only. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 secured more than 70 marks as fixed under the Circular. As the petitioner miser ably failed to achieve the said benchmark, he was not promoted. It has been submitted by Shri Bhagwati Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner that while assessing the candidates for promotion, no marks had been assigned for seniority at all, therefore, it was a selection exclusively on merit giving a complete go bye to seniority.;