i1 ife ^ m TEE EIGE CajtiT uF -MADHYA PiVPESi : JABALPUR Ii.^M^§M££jl±29£1 jyA PETITK3N5RS m^^^^^^ ^'- SasMl &Eaar Naik son of ^Ci a^giK-Karacian Lai CasMer-Gsua-Cleric Gzstiain sarak granG^-GteAlQn@,TaM» Aslapur IMgas, Distt. BaigaFh for Mraself and as aeit&ortsed of^ic^r f@y Gramin-Banfc QBployses AssEt., BaigarM* »VSrssis- "^Vt^v^ BESPO^ENTt r ^ BalSasSfc Begional GrasaiR gank»<3b&l@ng»Distt T&igar2i,t]§rougMSMiiRmn Shri S•G.^3%ndikar*i ^ Stoi ^»®.»|atwaySenior ©les'k-cyra-GasMsr ^feazsa-gaKa3?» Qi^ain @aiik,®istt»'Bai@a3eh» ^ Sfcrl. §•L«C^ou<iIia2>y,Ks^striya SHpervisor GsamSsy^a^ Saiisasx Station Boad, Baigasfc. pETirioNgft^NDsa Aiar^ ap INDIA i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 3458 of 1990 Petitioner Siishil Ktimar NeA Versus Raigarh Regional Gramia Baiik aiid others ^HH^ : Honl)le Mr. Justice K. Ags&ihotri. Shri S. N. Naade, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri P, R. Pataiikar, Advocate for the respondent No,l, None for the respondeiits No. 2 3, ORAL ORDER (17thJuly, 2006) The followmg oi-der ofttie Court is passed by Batislt K. Agnihotri, J. The preseut petition filed under Article 226 of fhe Constitutioii of a directioii to tlie respoiident No, 1 to proniote flie. petitioiier - above fhe respoiideute No. 2 ancl 3. It is admittecl by counsel for bofh the parties that tlie Bank lias the prto-ciple of promotioii as laid dowii by the Suprcnie Court. L-ec-Lniecl coiinsel appeariiig for ell the the mA/'olvecl iii the preseiit is squarely covered by the. decision of fhe Court m tlie case of Vs« asad (2006 AIR SCW 2822), wherem tlie Suprenie Court held as under:- "21, TIie c|ii€stioiifhat arises for coiisideratioii is fhe reliefto be gsanted, The appellaiit coiisidered for promotion 1991 aiid was not promoted, by wrongly adoptmg fhe 2fcias£igaSii»a-.a&naHSfiMHB \ w^vi^ ^iiMinili be erroueous by fhe suigle Judge, Division Bench aiid—by-tiEiis Court, The Baiik was directed to consider fhe case of AppeUant for proDiotion on the basis of seniority-cuisi-inerit. Thereafter, iii fhe contempt proceedmgs initiated by the appeUant, fhe Bank undertook to comply with fhe order directmg consideration of fhe appellaat's case by fhe prcx;ediire of seniority-cuBi-Dierit. But the Bank, again by adoptiiig fhe uierit-cuxn-seniority Eaethod, failed to promote fhe appeUant aad proinoted fhird respondent. The procedure adopted by the Bank had been foiind to be faiilty on fhree occasions by fhis Court aad the High Court, one ofwhich was in fhe case of AppeUaat himself. The appeUaat had been deniecl proniotiou for more thaa 16 years by repeatedly adopting such aB erroneoiis procedzire. In fhe circumstsjices, we do not fhnik it necessary to drive fhe appeUant once agaia to face the process of selectioii for proinotioii. This Court io. ConiptroUer aud Auditor General of India v. K. S. Jagannathan {1986 (2) SCC 679) observed thus: "There is fhus no clozibt that fhe High Courts io. India exercisuig their jurisdiction under Article 226 have fhe power to issue a writ of inandamiis or a writ ia fhe nature ofiaaadamus or to pass orders and given necessaiy directions where the Govemnient or a public aufhority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised fhe cliscrction confeiTed upon it by a statute or a mle or a policy-clecision of fhe Govemment or has exercised such discretion mala fide or on UTelevaiit considerations or by igiiormg the relevaiit consideratioiis aad materisls or in siich a manner as to frustrate flie object of coiifemiig siich discretion or fhe poUcy for miplesneiitiiig which such discretion has been coDferred. In atl such cases aad in any ofher fit aiid proper case a High Court caii, in fhe exercise of its juriscliction zinder Article 226, issue a writ of niaiidaisius or a writ in fhe natiire of mandamus or pass orders and given directions to coinpel fhe performance ia a proper ao.d lawfiil inamier of fhe discretion conferred upoa the goveninient or a pubMc authorily, aad in a proper case, ui order to prevent iojiistice resultiag to the concemed parties, fhe court may itsetf pass aa. order or give directions which the govemmeut or fhe piiblic aufhority should have passed or given had it properly and lawfiiUy exercised its discretion/" -— — Haviag regard to the factiial backgrozind of the case, aad having regasd to fhe fact fhat even zuider flie merit-ciini-seniority basis adoptecl by fhe bank flie ap^Uaat had securecl high marks ancl lie was deniecl proDiotiou 011 the grouncl that he faUecl to secure niuiiairuii niarks isi fhe iaterview, there is no need to refer the matter for fresh consides'ation. Witli a view to do complete justice, m exercise of our power under Article 142 we hereby direct the first respondent bauk to proniote fhe appeUant as a Field Siipervisor, froin fhe date the fhird defendant was pronioted as Field Supervisor and place him. above fhe fhird Respondcnt. However, he wiU be entitled to inonetary benefite flowing fz-oia such promotion only prospectively, fhough the pay is to be refsxed with reference to the retrospective date of proisiotion/' Acc'ordiiigly, tiiis petitioii is atlowed wifh a directioii to fhe respondeut No, 1 to proinote fhe petitioner ia accorclaiice wifh fhe directions given by tlie Supreme Com't iii the case of Hargo^isid Yada^ (Supra), No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge il Thakur