- (1.) The petitioners are working as the record-keepers in the Haryana State Co-operative Bank Ltd. Although no seniority list as envisaged under rule 8.5(i) of the 'Haryana State Co-operative Banks' Staff Service (Common Cadre) Rules, 1976, (hereinafter called the Rules) has been circulated so far, a tentative seniority list showing the comparative placing of the petitioner is filed as Annexure P.1. According to the said Rules, qualifications for a Peon is at least primary class pass whereas for a record-keeper for direct recruits, it is at least matriculation and by promotion seven years experience as a Peon or gunman, as per Annexure II annexed to the Rules. Rule 8.4 provides for the mode of appointment to the various posts of Service. Clause (vii) provides for the appointment of Clerks etc. by promotion from Daftris, Record-keepers, Peons, Gunmen, Chowkidars and Sweepers. Rule 8.5 provides that 10 per cent of the posts of Clerks will be filled up by promotion whereas 90 per cent will be filled up by direct recruitment. This rule also contemplates of preparing a joint seniority list of record-keepers and such peons who have passed matriculation and have three years experience for promotion to the posts of Clerks against 10 per cent. quota. Rule 8.9 provides for appointment by promotion. Clause (ii) thereof provides that the appointing authority shall be guided by service record, qualifications, both academic and professional and length of service of the employees in category for promotion. It further provides that the appointing authority may relax the qualifications for promotion to higher category in deserving cases with the premission of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana. Rule 13 provides for fixation of seniority. Clause (i) thereof states that the seniority of the employees already in service of the Apex bank or any Central Bank on the date on which the Rules came in force, shall be determined according to the date of joining in the category of post. According to the petitioners, as per the Rules, it is only the record-keepers who are seniors to peons and that being so, they were entitled to be promoted as Clerks against ten per cent quota allotted to them. The peons could not be equated with the record-keepers as their pay-scales were higher and the duties were also different. They also challenged rule 8.5 of the Rules being contradictory, arbitrary and being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
(2.) It will be relevant at this stage to note that during the pendency of this writ petition new service rules known as the Haryana State Co-operative Apex Bank's Staff Service (Common Cadre) Rules, 1988, have been framed and thereby the earlier Rules have been repealed. However, any action taken, order issued by law made under the provisions of the Rutes repealed shall, in so far it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the new rules be deemed to have been taken, issued or made under the provisions of the new rules. In the new rules, as far as this petition is concerned, in rule 8.1(ix), the posts of Clerks are to be filled up by direct recruitment and by promotion from amongst the record-keepers only. The peons as such could not be appointed as clerks by promotion as was provided in the Rules now repealed by the 1988 rules. On behalf of the respondent-Bank it has been urged that even if no joint seniority list as such was prepared, admittedly, the names of the petitioners appear at serial Nos. 1, 7, 9 and 10 in the tentative seniority list. The respondent had made promotion of the eligible incumbents up to serial No. 3 and still four more employees at serial Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 7 are there who are seniors to the petitioners. That being so, no writ petition as such was maintainable on behalf of the petitioners. It was next contended that Sarv Shri Maha Singh and Parvesh Kumar. Peons, were promoted to the posts of Clerks against the requisite quota meant for Peons under the Rules and, therefore, there was nothing wrong or illegal therein.
(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. It could not be successfully argued that rule 8.5(i) of the Rules was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Out of the Peons only those who had passed matriculation and had three years experience as such could be promoted as Clerks against 10 per cent quota for which a joint seniority list was to be prepared. Since the minimum qualification for appointment as a Peon was primary class pass, it was provided in the Rules that in case a Peon improves his qualifications during his tenure and passes matriculation, he could be promoted as a Clerk if in addition, he had experience of three years. Thus, there was nothing arbitrary as such which could be struck down as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, if any anomaly was there, that has now been rectified by the new rules of 1988, referred to above.;