M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) IN CWJC No. 2023 of 2001 the petitioner has prayed for quashing the combined seniority list dated 9.4.2001 wherein petitioner has been shown junior to respondent No. 3 Ravi Shankar Prasad and further for quashing the order of promotion of respondent No. 3 of the Officer cadre of Grade I.
(2.) IN 1984 the petitioner along with others including respondent No. 3 appeared at Banking Service Recruitment Examination and after qualifying the written test and interview a list of successful candidates in accordance with merit was forwarded to respondent No. 1 for appointment on the post of Clerk -cum -Cashier, In the said merit list petitioner was placed above respondent No, 3. It is alleged by the petitioner that he was appointed on 21.1.1985 and was posted at Head Office, Ranchi. The respondent No. 3 Ravi Shankar Prasad also joined as Clerk - cum -Cashier pursuant to letter of appointment dated 21.1.1985. In 1988 by office order dated 15.7.1988 a seniority list of Clerk -cum -Cashier was prepared wherein petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 27 and respondent No. 3 was placed at Sl. No. 28. In 1987 National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) issued a notification with regard to promotion to the post of Field Supervisors on the basis of seniority -cum -merit. In 1990 a notification dated 20.11.1990 was issued giving promotion to various clerk -cum -cashier who were junior to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the order of promotion in CWJC No. 160/1991(R), While the writ petition was pending a Division Bench of this Court decided the criteria for promotion in LPA Nos. 208 and 209 of 1991 (R). Following the Division bench judgment the notification dated 20.11.1990 giving promotion to other persons was set aside by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 160/1991 and the respondent Bank was directed to consider all eligible candidates including the petitioner if otherwise found eligible for promotion. It is contended by the petitioner that the respondents without giving any notice and without hearing him prepared a combined seniority list of eligible candidates for promotion. In the said combined seniority list dated 9.4.2001 the petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 32 while respondent No. 3 was placed at Sl. No. 31. On the basis of the said combined seniority list the respondent Bank arbitrarily promoted respondent No. 3 ignoring the case of the petitioner. The case of the respondent -Bank in the counter -affidavit is that the impugned combined seniority list has been prepared in compliance of the judgment passed in CWJC No. 160/1991. It is contended that the petitioner joined the service as Clerk -cum -Cashier on 22.1.1985 while respondent No. 3 joined the said post on 21.1.1985 and accordingly petitioner and respondent No. 3 have been placed at Sl. No. 32 and 31, respectively. The respondents further ease is that the combined seniority list has been prepared and published on the basis of the date of joining. So far promotion given to respondent No. 3 is concerned it is contended that petitioner could not qualify as he failed to get the minimum qualifying mark for the purpose of promotion.
(3.) RESPONDENT No. 3 Ravi Shankar Prasad in his counter -affidavit has taken similar stand that the petitioner joined his service on 22.1.1985 where as he joined on 21.1.1985 and accordingly he is senior to the petitioner. It has further been contended that the combined seniority list was prepared in view of the judgment of this Court in CWJC No. 160/91 (R) and the previous seniority list dated 15.7.1988 has been rectified.;