SHIVSHANKAR WARDE Vs. DEWAS SHAJAPUR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-Court Appeal under Clause X of Letters Patent has been preferred by some of unsuccessful petitioners of Writ Petition No. 799/2000, decided by learned single Judge on June 25, 2001. Writ Petition was filed by as many as ten petitioners. But, this appeal has been preferred only by five aggrieved petitioners, remaining five were joined as respondents. During pendency of appeal, appellant No. 3-Rakesh Patidar sought permission to withdraw from this appeal, thus, his name was directed to be deleted. Appellant No. 5-Sudhir Wakde died during pendency of this appeal, thus, his name was deleted. Appellants had approached writ Court by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging Order of Promotion issued by respondent No. 1-Dewas Shajapur Kshetriya Gramin Bank on March 16, 2000. Appellants have been working on the post of Junior Management Grade-I and were to be promoted to the post of Middle Management Grade-II.

(2.) Since they were denied promotion and instead seven other employees of respondent No. 1 Bank, arrayed herein as respondent Nos. 2 to 8, were given promotion, they challenged the same on the ground that in Gradation List, respondent Nos. 2 to 8 are much Junior to petitioners and if criteria of Seniority-cum- Merit was applied in true sense, then appellants would have an edge over these respondents.

(3.) Learned single Judge, placing reliance on judgments of Supreme Court reported in Jagathidowda C.N. v. Chairman Cauvery Gramin Bank AIR 1996 SC 2733 : 1996 (9) SCC 677 and B. V. Sivaiah v. K. Addanki Babu AIR 1998 SC 2565 : 1998 (6) SCC 720 : 1999-I-LLJ-754, held that no case for interference was made out and respondent Bank had adhered to criteria of Seniority-cum-Merit while granting promotion to respondents. It was further held by learned single Judge that cases of appellants were also considered, but they had failed to secure minimum required marks for becoming eligible for promotion. It was further held that their past record was not found as per norms prescribed. Thus, they were rightly not promoted. Against these findings recorded by learned single Judge, as mentioned above, some of petitioners have preferred appeal. We have heard learned counsel for parties at length and perused record.