- (1.) HEARD Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dharmendra Vaishya, who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent No. 3.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 29.6.2001 and 25th September, 2001 (Annexures-11 and 13 to the writ petition) rejecting petitioner's representation and appeal disputing his seniority, present writ petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid orders as well as the seniority list dated 21.11.2000. The facts in brief giving rise to the present dispute are as under: The petitioner vide order dated 3rd July, 1985 was appointed as Probationary Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 690-1420 in Kisan Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank'). A copy of the appointment letter is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The period of probation was two years liable to be extended by the Bank in its discretion. The petitioner's probation was extended by, three months vide letter dated 8th July. 1987 issued by the competent authority and thereafter he was confirmed w.e.f. 10.10.1987. Though, the petitioner has stated that he represented to the respondent No. 1 against the letter dated 8th July, 1987 whereby his probation was extended but there is nothing on record to show that the said letter was ever recalled. On the contrary the petitioner was admittedly confirmed on 10th July, 1987, It is thus evident that after expiry of the extended period of three months' probation, he was confirmed by respondent No. 1. A seniority list was published on 7th August, 1988 wherein the petitioner's name was at serial No. 28 while the respondents No. 4 and 5 were shown at serial No. 26 and 27. This list was prepared as per the Rules applicable at that time which provided for placing a person lower in seniority among his batch mates if his probation is extended. It is said that the petitioner filed his objection against the said list but did not receive any response from the respondents. Another seniority list was published on 17th July, 1994 wherein also the petitioner was shown at serial No; 29 i.e. below the respondents No. 4 and 5. Third seniority list was published on 23rd May, 1995 and fourth one on 3rd July, 1998. The position of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 remained same. It is stated that against the fourth seniority list, the petitioner filed an objection on 22nd August, 1998 but the same was also not disposed of. Thereafter, the fifth seniority list was published on 21.11.2000 where against the petitioner filed his objection on 30.12.2000. When the said objection was not decided, he filed Writ Petition No. 21297 of 2001 impleading Board of Directors, Kisan Gramin Bank and its Chairman as respondents No. 1 and 2. The relief sought in the writ petition were as under: (a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 to dispose of in accordance with law, representations of the petitioner dated 22.8.1998 (Annexure VI to this writ petition) and 30.12.1998 (Annexure VII to this writ petition) within one month or within as short period as may be deemed to be necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case; (b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to make any promotion of the persons junior to the petitioner during pendency of the aforesaid representations; (c) issue such other further suitable writ, order or direction as may be deemed to be proper; (d) award costs to the petitioner. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of on 25th May, 2001 directing the competent authority to decide petitioner's representations dated 22.8.1998 and 3.7.1998 within six weeks after hearing the concerned parties. Pursuant to the said judgment, it appears that the matter was heard by the Chairman of the Bank and he vide order dated 29th June, 2001 rejected petitioner's objection and upheld his seniority below the respondents No. 4 and 5. The petitioner's appeal against the said order was considered by the Board of Directors and in their meeting dated 5.9.2001 they also rejected the same. The said decision was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 25th September, 2001 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) impugned herein.
(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Rule 13 of Kisan Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations 2000') governs the matter of seniority of the petitioner qua other private respondents i.e. respondents No. 4 and 5. Rule 13 (v) of Regulations 2000 provides that the inter se seniority of officers or employee directly recruited in a batch to any cadre or scale shall be reckoned with reference to the rank allotted to them at the time of their selection. He submitted that the petitioner was at serial No. 2 in the merit list while the respondents No. 4 and 5 were below him and therefore, the petitioner was entitled for seniority over respondents No. 4 and 5 according to Rule 13 (v) of Regulations 2000. He contended that the aforesaid aspect has not been considered by the authorities of the Bank namely respondents No. 1 and 2 correctly and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. On behalf of the Bank a counter affidavit has been filed sworn by Sri N.K. Kacker, Chairman of the Bank supporting the order impugned in the writ petition. It has been stated that petitioner's probation was extended for a period of three months after assessing his performance. On expiry of the said extended period of probation, his performance was reviewed, and finding the same satisfactory, he was confirmed w.e.f. 10.10.1987 vide Bank's letter dated 10.10.1987. In the seniority list, which was prepared on 27th August, 1988 the name of petitioner was rightly placed below Raja Babu and Sheetal Das Sagar for the reasons that the Rule as applicable to the employees of the Bank at that time provided that if probation of an officer or employee is extended his seniority shall be reckoned just below all the officers or employees, if any, recruited in the same batch along with him. Chapter III Rule 13 (iii) of the Model Regulations provided to this effect and referred to in para-9 of the counter affidavit. It is submitted that subsequent rules are applicable and therefore, petitioner's representation has been rejected. In para 12,13 and 14, further it is pleaded that the seniority list of 1994-95 is only updated subsequently as on the date of their preparation and it was not a case of revision of seniority of the persons, which was already finalised. A short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 adopting reply of the Bank.;