- (1.) The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner-Union for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to promote the Secretaries of respondent No. 1 to the posts of Clerks/Cashiers against the quota fixed for promotees and further to direct the respondents not to fill the quota of the promotees from amongst Clerks by direct recruitment. It has been pointed out that vide order dated 15.7.1986, this Court had passed the following order in Review Application No. 34 of 1986 in C.W.P. No. 2004 of 1986 :- "The respondent-Bank has sought the modification of the order dated May 27, 1986. The said order is modified and the modified order shall now read as follows :- "Admitted. Vide order dated 24.4.1986 we had stayed the appointment by direct recruitment. This stay order is modified and is to read that if more hands are required in the interest of administration, it would be open to the respondents to promote seven eligible Secretaries prior to direct appointment provisionally. Such promotions would be subject to the decision of this writ petition."
(2.) It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that C.W.P.No. 1212 of 1982 which was again filed by the Employees' Union, Jind, wherein the selection of Clerks was made on direct quota allegedly over and above the quota which the direct recruits could in any case hold as per the rules, came up for hearing before this Court on 27.7.1988 when the following orders were passed :- "The main grievance of the petitioner, who is the Bank employees Union, was that as per Rule 9 read with Annexure 11 thereof, the Bank will have to maintain the ratio of 3:1 in the matter of direct recruitment and promotion, to any post. By the advertisement referred to in the petition calling for applications for appointment to clerical posts by direct recruitment, 24 posts were sought to be filled. The contention of the petitioner is that out of the 59 Clerks in position in the Bank, only two related to the promotees and the rest of the 56 are direct recruits and without complying with the rules by promoting 25 per cent in the category of promotee clerks, the selection of direct recruits was illegal. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel that the selection of 24 people as direct recruits was illegal, though we agree with the learned counsel that the Bank will have to maintain the ratio of 3: 1 between the direct recruits and promotees. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that 17 of the Secretaries were made selection grade and the selection grade posts of Secretaries are of the rank of clerks and that will amount to promotion of Secretaries to Clerks posts. It is in that view probably, the advertisement for direct recruitment was made. On that ground, he wanted to sustain direct recruits. Though we do not agree with the learned counsel for the Bank that giving a selection grade to the Secretaries would amount of promotion of Secretaries to the posts of Clerks, we are unable to interfere with the selection as such. However, we have to direct the Bank to maintain the ratio and accordingly we issue a writ of mandamus directing the Bank to maintain the ratio 3 :1 between direct recruits and the promotees in the cadre of clerks. Accordingly, the respondents shall not make any direct recruitment hereafter until that ratio is reached. This relief should satisfy the petitioner. Since the direct recruitment was made in 1981 itself, the promotion shall be effected within a period of three months from this date. Accordingly, mandamus is issued in the above terms. There will be no order as to costs." Sd/- V. Ramaswami, Chief Justice. Sd/- G.R. Majithia, July 27, 1988. Judge"
(3.) On the basis of said submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner- Union contends that a direction is already there by a Division Bench of this Court by way of Mandamus that the Bank shall maintain the ratio of 3:1 between direct recruits and the promotees in the cadre of Clerks. He submits that in the replication filed by the petitioner, a specific averment was made that 7 posts which were to be filled were lying vacant in the quota of Secretaries and, therefore, 7 people were required to be promoted from the Secretaries' quota and it was on the basis of this submission that the order dated 15.7.1986 reproduced above has been passed. Counsel for the Bank also accepts this contention that the said order was passed in the light of the replication filed by the petitioner. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that during the interregnum, the respondent-Bank had in accordance with the order of this Court, passed resolution No. 6 dated 20.4.1987 wherein the Board of Directors and respondent No. 1-Bank had promoted 7 persons who were Secretaries. However, counsel for the petitioner states that 2 of the said persons are Selection Grade Secretaries. He states these two persons do not belong to the Secretaries cadre and therefore, have been probably wrongly promoted by the Bank. However, he submits that he would be satisfied if this resolution is given effect to despite of the word "provisionally" incorporated therein. He says so on the ground that the selection of Zile Singh, Selection Grade Secretary and Gaze Singh, Selection Grade Secretary is not under challenge in this writ petition. It goes without saying that if resolution No. 6 dated 20.4.1987 passed by the Jind Central Bank Limited, Jind, is in accordance with the order passed by this Court in C.W.P. No. 1212 of 1982 decided on July 27, 1988, the same cannot be said to be in violation of the Rule and would, therefore, be in consonance with the order passed by this Court and for all intents and purposes would be permanent in nature and the word "provisionally" was only an addendum word, simply in compliance with the order passed by this Court which has said that such promotions shall be subject to the decision of the writ petition.;