Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) THE petitioner - a Class -IV cadre employee with the Reserve Bank of India (short 'the Bank'), is aggrieved of his non -promotion to Class -III cadre on the post of Assistant Care Taker for the vacancies of the year 2015.
(2.) THE petitioner, a scheduled Tribe, was appointed as a Mazdoor in the Class -IV cadre w.e.f. 19.5.1980 with the respondent -Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter "RBI"). He was promoted within Class -IV cadre first on the post of Senior Official Attendant and thereafter as Head Office Assistant vide order dated 1.7.2007 and is presently working in the Cash Department. He was then eligible for the next promotion based on seniority and selection to the post of Assistant Care Taker in Class -III cadre. However since 2011 he has been over -looked and superseded on each occasion, last of which was in relation to the year 2015 on the ground that he did not satisfy the promotion criteria. The case of the petitioner is that he has been arbitrary over -looked for promotion and superseded by respondent No. 3 - Chanda Ram Meena despite his being the senior most on the feeder post i.e. Head Office Attendant in the cadre of Class -IV and a ST to boot in which category a reserved post obtained for promotion against vacancies of 2015.
(3.) THE main contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that promotions within Class -IV as to the post of Senior/Head Official Assistant as is reflected in the memorandum of settlement dated 24.10.2005 between the All India Reserve Bank Worker's Federation and the Management of the Reserve Bank of India (on reduction/merger of categories, introduced of new designations, time bound promotion scheme, revised scheme of switch over) were based of "suitability" determined with reference to Confidential Reports, Leave, vigilance record. The petitioner was thus evidently found suitable for promotion within the Class -IV cadre, and hence should have been similarly found for further promotion to the post of Assistant Care Taker. Yet the petitioner has been arbitrarily denied promotion on the purported ground of his lacking in suitability. Counsel submitted that albeit the fact of a departmental inquiry against the petitioner and consequent punishment therein, in 1998, of reduction in the lowest grade in the time scale of Class -IV visited upon the petitioner is indeed true, yet the said punishment could not have been taken into consideration in 2015 both for reason of being stale and for reason of it having been "washed off" on the earlier promotion on the basis of suitability within the Class -IV cadre. It has been submitted that the respondent -Bank has emphasized a stale incident and over -looked the petitioner's recent and current performance on the feeder post held by him in a palpably unfair manner in finding him not suitable for promotion as Assistant Care Taker.;