S.Rafat Alam, Sudhir Agarwal - (1.) AGGRIEVED by the non-promotion to the post of Senior Manager (Officer M.M.G.E.-II) the two petitioners have preferred this writ petition initially but it has been pressed before us only on behalf of petitioner No. 1 and therefore, is confined to him only.
(2.) THE petitioner No, 1-Anil Kumar was selected for the post of Officer in the Gorakhpur Chhetriya Bank in the year 1981 and after completion of training joined as Branch Manager on 3.1.1982. For promotion to the post of Officer M.M.G.E.-II, proceedings were initiated by the respondent No. 1 in the year 1997. Though there are no statutory rules framed laying down procedure and criterion for promotion yet the Bank have issued executive orders providing that criterion for promotion would be "seniority-cum-merit" and the officers having completed eight years of service would be eligible to be considered for such promotion. It also provides that the merit of the officer concerned shall be ascertained on the basis of the service record as well as interview. THE respondent-bank has prescribed certain marks for interview and service record etc. and it is also provided that those, who obtain 40% and above, shall only be treated suitable for promotion, but those, who secure less than 40% shall be unsuitable for promotion. THE petitioners, however, have not been selected and promoted to the post of Officer M.M.G.E.-II though large number of persons junior to them were promoted vide select list dated 6.8.1997. It is contended that the aforesaid promotion is wholly illegal inasmuch as instead of making promotion on the basis of "seniority-cum-merit", the respondent No. 1 has adopted the criterion of merit and has made comparative assessment of various officers and the promotions have been given accordingly. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted, that since the petitioner has obtained more than 40% marks as prescribed, he was entitled to be treated suitable for promotion and thereafter on the basis of seniority he ought to have been selected without being tested on comparative assessment on merit with his juniors. The bank has filed its counter-affidavit wherein it is not disputed that the promotion will be on the basis of "seniority-cum-merit". For the purposes of determining the merit the mode of selection prescribed is as under : "(Interview and assessment of performance reports for the preceding three years period.....)"
(3.) IN para 8 of the counter-affidavit the respondents have stated as under : "8. That as would be clear and evident from a bare perusal of the aforesaid rules, all officers who have completed 8 years service as officer in the answering respondent-Bank, would fall within the eligibility criteria; however, the selection mode for the said posts would be interview and assessment for the preceding 3 years period as officers for petitioner promotion." In para 14 it is stated that the Board of Directors issued circular postulating basis and criterion of promotion and the said circular dated 18.3.1997 has been placed on record as Annexure-C.A. 2 and paragraph 13 thereof provides as under : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... "Fitness implies that there is nothing against an officer, no disciplinary action is pending against him and none is contemplated. The officer has neither been reprimanded nor any adverse remarks have been conveyed to him in the reasonable recent past." ;