15.WP.908-98 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITON NO.908 OF 1998 S.G. Wadhavkar ] working as Assistant General ] Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, ] 19/29, Ambalal Doshi Marg, ] Mumbai - 400 023. ] ..Petitioner. Versus 1. The Bank of Maharashtra ] Lokmangal, 1501, Shivaji ] Nagar, Pune - 411 005. ] 2. The Chairman and Managing ] Director, Bank of Maharashtra, ] Central Office, Lokmangal, ] 1501, Shivaji Nagar, ] Pune - 411 005. ] 3. The General Manager (Personnel),] Bank of Maharashtra, Central ] Office, Lokmangal, 1501, ] Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411 005. ] 4. M.V. Sardeshpande, ] at present working as ] General Manager, ] Bank of Maharashtra, ] C.O. Pune, Lokmangal, ] 1501, Shivajinagar, ] Pune - 411 005. ] 5. D.R. Palnitkar, ] at present working as G.M. ] Bank of Maharashtra, ] C.O., Lokmangal, ] 1501, Shivajinagar, ] Pune - 411 005. ] 15.WP.908-98 2 6. R.S. Chinchalkar, ] at present working as ] G.M., Bank of Maharashtra, ] C.O., Lokmangal, ] 1501, Shivajinagar, ] Pune - 411 005. ] 7. S.V. Limaye, ] at present working as ] Dy.G.M., Bank of Maharashtra, ] C.O., Lokmangal, ] 1501, Shivajinagar, ] Pune - 411 005. ] 8. M.L. Mankar, (Retired) ] as G.M., 353, Shaniwar ] Peth, Pune - 411 030. ] 9. P.K. Nene, ] at present working as G.M. ] Bank of Maharashtra, C.O. ] Lokmangal, 1501, Shivaji ] Nagar, Pune - 411 005. ] 10. S.K. Modak, (Retired), ] as Dy. G.M., Opp.Ghantali ] Lodge, Near New English ] School, Dr.Ramesh Pradhan ] Marg, Naupada, Thane ] - 400 602. ] 11. V.V. Godbole, ] at present working as ] Dy.G.M., Bank of Maharashtra, ] C.O., Lokmangal, 1501, Shivaji ] Nagar, Pune - 411 005. ] 12. R.B. Kulkarni, Retired as ] Dy.G.M., Lane Number, 9, ] Natraj Hsg. Society, ] 15.WP.908-98 3 Ganeshnagar, Pune - ] 411 029. ] 13. A.K. Bhoomkar, ] at present working as ] Dy.G.M., Bank of Maharashtra, ] Wagale Industrial Estate, ] Thane. ] 14. A.Y. Kolhatkar, ] at present working as ] Dy. General Manager, ] Bank of Maharashtra,C.O., ] Lokmangal, 1501, Shivaji ] Nagar, Pune - 411 005. ] 15. R.N. Tawade, ] at present working as ] Dy. G.M., Bank of Maharashtra ] Apeejay House, 130, ] V.B. Gandhi Marg, Fort, ] Mumbai - 400 023. ] 16. V.G. Sardesai, ] at present working as Dy.G.M., ] Bank of Maharashtra, C.O., ] Lokmangal, 1501, Shivaji ] Nagar, Pune - 411 005. ] 17. R.M. Nayak, ] at present working as G.M. ] Bank of Maharashtra, ] Apeejjay House, 130, ] V.B.Gandhi Marg, Fort, ] Mumbai - 400 023. ] ..Respondents. ... Mr.B.S. Nayak, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.A.G. Damle, Advocate for Respondent No.1. ... 15.WP.908-98 4 CORAM : F. I. REBELLO & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 05, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER F.I.REBELLO,J: 1. The petitioner by the present Petition challenges his non-selection to the post of Deputy General Manager in the office of the respondent No.1. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he was more meritorious than respondent Nos.4 to 17 and consequently the selection of the said candidates is bad. It is also his contention that the fourth respondent had faced CBI enquiry and the results of his interview was kept in sealed cover from time to time from 1995 to 1997 when the CBI enquiry was concluded and he was awarded punishment of censure. It is further averred that the respondents who were selected were also working as Assistant General Managers. The 4th respondent who was Assistant General Manager was acting as officiating Deputy General Manager from 1993 to 1997 and in his official capacity has written the confidential reports of the petitioner though he was in competition for the same post as the petitioner in the interview wherein the confidential reports written by the respondent No.4 were placed. 2. The petitioner has pointed out that he had long and meritorious 15.WP.908-98 5 service record and ultimately on 26.7.1993 he was promoted as Assistant General Manager. There are various allegations so far as respondent No.4 is concerned. 3. The respondent Bank has filed a reply and they have dealt with the said contentions. It is principally contended that insofar as the assessment made by respondent No.4 is concerned, the final ratings were awarded by Shri A.G. Joshi for 1993-94 and Shri S.G. Abhyankar for 1994-95. The petitioner was awarded "good". It is also pointed out that the assessment made by Shri.Sardeshpande were not final. The petitioner, it is set out, consistently secured "good" ratings during the past 10 years except "very good" rating in the year 1992-93. The adverse observations in respect of the petitioner for last three years were about he being a hot tempered and need to improve his emotional stability. 4. At the hearing of the Petition, we called on the Bank to supply the record of the DPC. The selection is based on merit-cum-seniority. In the DPC 1994-95, 16 candidates were considered. The petitioner in the seniority was at Sr.No.16 and in the order of merit was at Sr.No.13. It therefore cannot really be said that insofar as that year 1994-95 is concerned, the selection suffers from any illegality in the absence of any challenge to the procedure of the DPC. The minutes of the selection committee which met for selection 1996 are not 15.WP.908-98 6 available but considering the record, we have found that those who were selected were senior to the petitioner and even in the selection done in the year 1994-1995, they were found more meritorious than the petitioner. Insofar as the selection of 25.1.1997 is concerned, the petitioner did not participate in the proceedings and consequently the petitioner was not considered. 5. The question therefore is whether there has been infraction of Article 14 and/or Article 16 and/or for that matter any statutory provisions. 6. The only contention as raised before us is that Shri Sardeshpande has written his confidential reports. We have perused the record and we find that consistently the petitioner was rated as "good". The confidential reports written by Shri Sardeshpande were reviewed by Shri A.G. Joshi and Shri S.G. Abhyankar and they awarded ratings as "good". It, therefore, cannot be said that serious prejudice was caused to the petitioner. Insofar as the contention pertaining to adverse remark is concerned, they really are about his temperament. Petitioner's ratings for those years are in terms of his earlier ratings which is "good". That, therefore, has not adversely affected the petitioner. 7. The petitioner also contended that one of the member of the selection committee was the General Manager and there were some remarks made against the General Manager by RBI, consequent to which the 15.WP.908-98 7 said General Manager and Chairman has a grudge against him. We do not find, firstly, that the Chairman has been joined by name nor there was any allegation against him in person except some vague allegations. In that context, there is no merit in the said contention. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere. 9. Rule discharged. Writ Petition is rejected. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)