- (1.) This common order shall dispose of both the Letters Patent Appeals being LPA Nos. 208 and 209 of 1991 (R).
(2.) Both these Letters Patent Appeals arise out of the judgment dated November 4, 1999 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 927 of 1991 (R) whereby the learned single Judge while allowing the writ application filed by the writ petitioners and setting aside the impugned order of promotion as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application issued a writ of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent Bank to consider afresh the matter relating to the promotion of all eligible candidates keeping in view the direction contained in the aforesaid judgment of the learned single Judge. When the judgment of the learned single Judge was challenged in appeal, the Division Bench hearing the appeals was confronted with a situation where it had two conflicting views of the Division Benches relating to the interpretation and scope of the guidelines and Rules with regard to the recruitment based on the principles of seniority-cum-merit; whereas, one view was that the seniority-cum-merit made it permissible for the competent authority to prescribe and allocate different marks for different aspects including seniority, performance, educational qualifications etc. the other view was, that where promotion was based on seniority-cum-merit, it was not permissible for the competent authority to allocate different marks for the aforesaid aspects and that merit being equal, seniority would have overriding consideration. The Division Bench accordingly referred the aforesaid aspect for consideration by Full Bench which accordingly considered all these aspects vide judgment dated November 4, 1999 and held that where promotion was on seniority-cum-merit basis, greater emphasis has to be given to the seniority and that in all matters relating to promotion, on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, even though minimum necessary merit has to be determined, seniors even though less meritorious would have priority and a comparative assessment of the merit thus is not required to be made. In the facts of this particular case, commenting upon para 7(c) of the second schedule of the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Other Employees) Rules, 1988, the Full Bench in para 26 of the judgment (supra) took a clear view that the clauses (a) and (c) of para 7 were clearly reconcilable and by harmoniously interpreting these two clauses, one providing and prescribing the sources of recruitment and the other the mode of selection, requirement of appointment by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit can be achieved by enabling the competent authority to allocate requisite marks for each year for assessment of performance in the past three years and also to allocate marks for the interview. Such allocation of marks of interview be kept at the bare minimum only to arrive at the level of qualifying merit and once that is done and all the eligible candidates are found to be possessed of such qualifying merit, seniors have to be given preference. This has been elaborately discussed in para 26 of the judgment.
(3.) Law laid down by the Full Bench, therefore, clearly approves, in manner of speaking, the judgment of the learned single Judge by holding that the promotion of respondents Nos. 3 to 8 in the writ petition based on the impugned orders of promotion was bad in law. The Full Bench has, in our opinion, clearly disapproved of such promotion. Therefore, we have no hesitation whatsoever, following the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Full Bench, in dismissing these appeals by upholding the judgment of the learned single Judge in toto.;