K. Kannan, J. - (1.) THE writ petition addresses the issue of settling the seniority list and the entitlement for consideration of the petitioners to the posts of Assistant Development Officers, which according to the petitioners had been wrongly afforded to the respondents No. 3, 12 to 33 giving them the benefit of reservation and to respondents No. 4 to 11 who were juniors to the petitioners No. 1 and 2. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 claimed that they had been appointed as Stenographers in the month of June, 1982 and August, 1982 in the Reserve Bank of India and later transferred on their option to NABARD that was constituted in July, 1982. The petitioner No. 3 had been appointed as a Clerk Grade II on 16.04.1984 as a direct recruit and petitioner No. 4 had been directly recruited in the month of April, 1984 at Jaipur and later transferred to Chandigarh.
(2.) THE petitioners were referred to the NABARD Staff Rules, 1982 as the basis for appointment to the posts of Grade A through three different modes; (i) direct recruitment, (ii) departmental test and (iii) merit test. In any vacancy in the cadre of officers in Grade A, the vacancy would be filled up by direct recruitment upto 40% on the basis of All India Competitive Test and interview by the Selection Board of NABARD. Marginal relaxation in eligibility condition in regard to age could be given in respect of staff candidates, who had completed one year of service as on the date of notification for the purpose. That in regard to departmental test, 40% vacancies in the cadre of officers would be filled up by promotion of the confirmed employees of Grade B on the basis of departmental written test, assessment of the confidential reports and service records as relevant factors. The further requirement was that candidates must have a minimum of 7 years qualifying service as Clerk Grade II or Clerk Grade I or both, who would be eligible for taking departmental test. Remaining 20% of the vacancies would be filled up on merit based selection on the basis of competitive test followed by interview out of confirmed employees, who had completed minimum four years of service. If the vacancies under the merit channel remained unfilled even after three promotional merit test for three consecutive panel years, it shall lapse and the same will be filled up by direct recruitment. In the month of September/October 1992, the Bank had appointed 100 Assistant Development Officers in Group A against quota of 40% of the direct recruits. If the criteria in the Rules were to be adopted, the same number of seats must also be taken as available for persons to be selected after departmental test and 50 persons were to be taken on merit test thereby making available 150 more seats to be set apart in the latter two categories. On 26.04.1982, a departmental examination had been conducted for enlisting 40% of vacancies to be filled up by holding departmental test but the Bank did not declare any result in regard to the successful candidates. The petitioners would contend that they had taken the departmental test and they had also been successful in the test. A list had been prepared on 20.11.1992 for posting against the Assistant Development Officers Group A and in the select list that had been made, 86 names had been published. The persons against Sr. No. 1 to 74 have been taken against 40% of the vacancies filled up by holding departmental test and candidates shown as Sr. Nos. 75 to 86 which came to 12 in number had been filled up against 20% of vacancies under the category of merit test. The petitioners would claim that they had attempted to secure the details of the vacancies that had been created and the respective seats which had been filled up from the two different categories and that they had come to learn that 99 vacancies had been recognized as existing and 66 vacancies could be filled up against 40% quota for departmental examination and remaining 33 vacancies had to be filled up against 20% quota of merit test. If that information were to be taken as correct, the list published by the respondent which was filed in the Court as Annexure P -1 showed that vacancies against Sr. No. 1 to 74 had to be taken up after holding departmental test and vacancies against Sr. Nos. 75 to 80 were taken up as filled up after holding merit test. As per the information collected, it was made to appear that 8 persons under the purview of merit itself had been transferred to the quota of 40% relating to departmental test to give the benefit to the candidates belonged to reserved category. The grouse of the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 is that the vacancies for persons in the merit test quota could not be transferred to the quota of vacancies to be filled up by holding departmental test without assigning any reason. The petitioners No. 3 and 4 would contend that as Clerks in the Bank, they had taken merit test to fill up the 20% of the vacancies and they secured more than 60% of the marks in the test and that they had also called for the interview. The Bank had disclosed no criteria for assessment at the interview and instead of filling 100 posts against the 40% quota for departmental test, the Bank had filled up only 70 seats and against the merit test quota only 12 candidates had been empanelled. Therefore, apart from the failure of the Bank to fill up all the available vacancies, the respondents had actually promoted respondents No. 3, 12 to 33 giving them the benefit of reservation at the time of promoting them which could not be done.
(3.) THE relevance of the seniority obtained by virtue of the fact that under Rule 12, a combined merit list of direct recruits vis -a -vis promotees in a group should be fixed by placing the direct recruits enbloc at the appropriate place with reference to the date on which the selection had been approved by the Bank in such a way that placement of the direct recruit should be immediately below the name of junior -most officiating promoted employees. The seniority list prepared in the year 1985 showed that petitioners No. 3 and 4 were placed at Sr. No. 597 and 637 respectively and respondent Nos. 12 to 30 had been shown beneath serial number commencing from 763. In the seniority list prepared in November, 1982, the respondent Nos. 12 to 30 had been assigned seniority positions higher to the position assigned to the petitioners at Sr. Nos. 3, 92 and 426 respectively. The grounds of challenge contained in the writ petition were, therefore: - (i) that respondent Nos. 3, 12 to 33 had been empanelled for promotion giving them the benefit of reservation which was impermissible. (ii) the Bank could not fill seats belonging to 20% quota of merit test towards 40% of vacancies to be filled up for departmental test. (iii) that respondent Nos. 4 to 11 had been empanelled for promotion who were juniors to the petitioners No. 1 and 2. (iv) that respondent Nos. 12 to 33, who had been juniors to the petitioners No. 3 and 4 had been shown as seniors in the seniority list dated 01.01.1990 without giving any opportunity of hearing. The further objection is that entire vacancies commensurate with the number of seats which were filled up through direct recruitment had not been filled up. If the candidates for promotion after departmental test were to be given the due share, 26 vacancies still existed and the petitioners would have been entitled to such consideration. Even against 20% vacancies in the merit test, only 12 seats had been filled up and still 30 seats were to be filled up and the petitioners No. 3 and 4 would have also been benefited if the quota had been properly applied. There was simply no justification for the respondents to reduce the number of vacancies to be filled up. If for any reason, the vacancies available were to be taken as 99 in the proportionate which the Rules provided, 66 seats must have been apportioned to the 40% quota to be filled up through departmental test and 33 seats must have been filled up for 20% after holding the merit test. In such a situation, the diversion of 8 seats relating to that 20% quota towards 40% quota for departmental test literally took away the benefit of consideration to persons, who were entitled to be considered for promotion from the lower cadre through departmental test.;