DEBANGSU BASAK,J. - (1.) The petitioners seek a direction upon the authorities to treat the petitioners as granted promotion on normal promotion in terms of the Rules framed by the bank.
(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioners draws the attention of the Court to the internal promotion Rules governing the subject promulgated on November 28, 2013 by the bank. He submits that, the normal promotion Rules contemplate two kinds of promotion. One kind of promotion being a Fast Track promotion and the other being a normal promotion. He submits that, there are varying criteria laid down for the purpose of considering Fast Track promotion and normal promotion. The petitioners herein had participated in both the categories. The petitioners became unsuccessful in both the categories. He submits that, the writ petitioners now want to concentrate on normal promotion. He draws the attention of the Court to the Rules relating to normal promotion and submits that, the selection process consists of Appraisal of Performance Report and the marks obtained at the interview. So far as the Appraisal to the Performance Report is concerned, it must be for six years. In the present case, the bank has taken Appraisal of Performance Report for five years. Therefore, the entire selection process stands vitiated. He relies upon the decision dated November 22, 2013 and June 12, 2013 passed by a Coordinate Bench in W.P. 9703 (W) of 2013 (Md. Baharuzzaman v. Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank and Ors.).
(3.) Learned Advocate for the bank submits that, the selection process consists of two heads. One being the marks given in Performance Appraisal Report and the other being at the interview. The petitioners did not succeed at the interview although having succeeded in the Performance Appraisal Report. Therefore, even if there is some breach of the rules governing the selection process, the petitioners cannot claim themselves to be prejudiced.;