- (1.) HEARD Counsel for the parties.
(2.) NOBODY has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 to 46 de spite service by publication. This special appeal is directed against the judgment and order of Hon'ble Single Judge dated 7th November, 1998 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12315 of 1990; Rajendra Prasad Yadav v. Chairman, Sanyuktkshetriya Gramin Bank, Balrampur Branch, Azamgarh. The facts giving rise to the present special appeal are as follows: Sanyukt Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Balrampur Branch, Azamgarh is a rural bank. Petitioner-appellant was appointed on the post of Junior Clerk-cum-Cashier on 17-2-1982. He was promoted on the post of Senior Clerk-cunvcashier in the year 1984. The next promotional post in the cadre is of Field Supervisor. The petitioner-appellant filed writ petition before this Court challenging therein that the criteria for promotion on the post of Field Supervisor is seniority-cum-merit, per sons junior to petitioner and having inferior service record have been granted such promotion on the post of Field Supervisor under the select list published on 12-4-1990, He, therefore, prayed that he may also be granted similar promotion from the date persons junior to him have been promoted. On behalf of the respondents counter-affidavit was filed in the writ petition and it was contended that the criteria for promotion had been laid down under the circular of the Board dated 10th April, 1989, wherein after interview assessment of performance for promotion to the post of Field Supervisor had been made. Peti tioner could not succeed therefore superseded. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Jagathigowda C. N. and Ors. v. Chairman Cauvery Gramina Bank and Ors. , AIR 1996 SC 2733.
(3.) THE Hon'ble Single Judge, after hearing counsel for the parties, under the impugned judgment and order held that petitioner had appeared in the interview and since he had not been selected it cannot be said that his any legitimate claim has been ignored. It has further been held that the petitioner could not demonstrate that the persons mentioned in paragraphs 12 and 16 of the writ petition had performed poorly in interview and assessment report was equal to that of the petitioner or lesser than that of the petitioner. Lastly it has been re corded that since there is no allegation of bias or Mala fide against the selection committee neither it has been alleged that the petitioner had outstanding or very good performance, he is not entitled to any relief. The Hon'ble Single Judge in last but one paragraph of the said judgment has further noticed that certain facts stated for the first time in the rejoinder affida vit do make out a case in favour of the petitioner but since no opportunity has been given to the respondents to counter the said facts, the facts so pleaded in the rejoinder affidavit can not be taken note of.;