- (1.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find any error apparent on the face of the record in relation to the order dated 09.04.2012 as passed in SAW No. 223/2012 whereby a co-ordinate Bench declined to entertain the intra-court appeal against the order dated 04.01.2012 as passed by the learned The sum and substance of the matter remains that earlier, in the writ petition filed by Marwar Gramin Bank Employees Union through the present petitioner (CWP No.5271/2004) this Court in the order dated 04.09.2006 directed the respondent-Bank to fill in the two vacant promotional posts from amongst the general candidates by adhering to the promotion process that had already taken place. Pursuant to the order so passed by this Court, the respondent Bank proceeded to consider the case of the eligible candidates and in the last, the respondents Nos. 4 and 5, being the persons senior to the petitioner-appellant, were accorded promotion to the post of Officer Scale-I by adopting seniority-cum- Navendra Pal Vs. The MGB Gramin Bank & Ors.
(2.) MERIT criteria. Aggrieved by the position that he was not accorded promotion, the petitioner filed the writ petition (CWP No.1197/2007) that was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by the order dated 04.01.2012. With the admitted position that the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were senior to the petitioner-appellant, the learned Single Judge declined to entertain the writ petition as filed by the petitioner and the co-ordinate Bench endorsed the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The co-ordinate Bench, however, made the observations for consideration of the case of the petitioner- appellant for his promotion on the basis of seniority qua other employees who are junior to him depending upon the availability of the vacancies that may arise in future. The co-ordinate Bench in the order dated 09.04.2012, inter alia, said:- "In our considered opinion, when admittedly, the respondents No. 4 and 5 were senior to the appellant (writ petitioner) and further they have cleared the examination, then applying the rule of seniority-cum-merit, which is applicable to this case, the respondents No. 4 and 5 were rightly considered and given promotion to the promotional post in question. In no case, the appellant could have claimed march over the respondents No. 4 and 5 � they being senior to the appellant. It is this view, which was taken by the Writ Court while dismissing the appellant's writ petition, and we find no good ground to differ with this view because it is in accordance with the procedure prescribed for consideration of cases of promotion. We however wish to observe that we have only considered the case of the appellant as against the respondents No. 4 and 5 and found no merit therein. However, the case of the appellant for his promotion to the post of Officer Scale-I on the basis of his seniority qua other employees who are junior to him deserves to be considered by the respondent- Bank depending upon the availability of the vacancies that may arise in future in the promotional cadre. It is with these observations, we find no merit in this appeal, which fails and is dismissed in limine." Navendra Pal Vs. The MGB Gramin Bank & Ors. In the given set of facts and circumstances, we are unable to find any error apparent on the face of record so as to consider review of the order dated 09.04.2012. The order has, obviously, been passed after taking a comprehensive view of the matter. Accordingly, the review petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed, of course, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner in taking recourse to other appropriate remedies in accordance with law.;