- (1.) This order must be seen as in continuation of the facts elicited through my order dated 22.03.2012 except for a minor modification that in para 2 of the order I have wrongly observed that on one occasion leave had been sanctioned and on another occasion a post-facto sanction had been accorded. Both the counsel would agree that it was erroneous and that there were "some occasions" where leave had been sanctioned and. "on some other occasions" a post-facto sanction had been accorded and the same shall be read as such. The point revolves on the right of consideration for promotion of a person, who admittedly had no adverse ACRs nor was he proceeded with departmentally for any misconduct during the relevant time when the consideration for promotion was undertaken. The point hinges of whether leave that he had obtained in the years 1993 and 1994 for a period of about 47 days that registered a note in the mark sheet for departmental qualifying test for promotion that his leave record was not satisfactory could be put against the petitioner denying to him the promotion for that year.
(2.) The learned senior counsel Mr. Atma Ram refers me to the promotion policy that existed, which contained a specific reference to the satisfactory service record that would still have a bearing to enlisting successful candidates for promotion. The relevant clause in the promotion policy of the year 1972 is reproduced her: III. List of successful candidates (a) The Board will convey to the bank the results of the written test. They will also assess the service record of candidates who have passed the written examination (all three papers or all four papers as the case may be) and declare those of them to be fit for promotion whose service record is found by them to be 'not unsatisfactory'. (b) If the service record of a candidate who has passed the written examination does not satisfy the above requirement, an indication thereof will be given in the list of those who have passed the written examination. The concerned employee will not qualify for promotion until the Board, after reviewing his record, declares him so qualified, but he will be exempt for appearing at the written test again. The review will be done by the Services Board after such interval or intervals as the Services Board consider proper provided that the first of such reviews should not be later than one year from date of declaration of the list. For this review, the Board may interview the candidate if they so desire. The learned counsel would argue that this was sought to be modified by a subsequent policy, which was a subject of challenge before the Supreme Court and finally settled through the decision of the Supreme Court in Reserve Bank of India v. C.N. Sahasranaman, 1986 AIR(SC) 1830 The subsequent policy, which was issued on 5th June, 1986 has a preamble that reads thus: The scheme for promotion of Staff Officers Gr. 'A', annexed to Administration Circular No. 8. dated 13th May 1972, stands modified as per the judgment dated 30th April 1986 of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3234 of 1981 - Reserve Bank of India and others v. C.N. Sahasranaman and others, - affirming the modifications submitted by the Bank, which were also put to referendum among the Class III employees. 2. The modifications to the principles governing recruitment and promotion for Staff Officer Gr. 'A', submitted to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and which have been affirmed by it, are as under... This modified scheme provides for 10% of vacancies of Staff Officers Grade-A could be filled up by direct recruitment and of the remaining 90%, 75% of the same, that is, 671/2% of the total vacancies could be filled up on the basis of written examination which is a qualifying test and 25% of 90%, namely, 221/2% of the total vacancies would be filled up in the order of merit amongst the persons, who had passed the qualifying test The clause that is relevant for the remaining 671/2% would required to be reproduced: Successful candidates would be empanelled in the central panel in order of their comparative merits and they would be considered for posting in order of their position in the central panel as, when and where, the vacancies to the posts of Staff Officer Gr. A in any of the Offices of the Bank may arise. The attempt of the learned senior counsel was, therefore, to show that petitioner had actually been a successful candidate in the qualifying test and as a person falling within 671/2%, he ought to have been promoted on the basis of inter se seniority.
(3.) This is contested by the counsel appearing on behalf of the bank Ms. Suri by a reference to the fact that the modified policy would only to the extent to which, there could be any Inconsistency. The original provision for the manner of enlistment of successful candidates with a provision as contained in 111(a) that declared a person fit for promotion whose service record was found to be 'not unsatisfactory' must be taken as still relevant for consideration, even after the modified policy was brought. The counsel would argue that the unsatisfactory leave record had been brought to the attention of the petitioner through a notice issued on 18.01.1995 and still later on 13.09.1995, and he had himself responded on 26.09.1995 that he had improved his leave record and that he could be considered for promotion.;