i. //" t^ IN THE JUDICATURE OF MADHYA PRADESH_HIGHCOURI AI J&BALPU&- - ^tp..^)-^]^.] W.P.NO. _K°^L/ /97. , .,. .., ,_,_,,........^ WRI'r UNDEa ARTICLE 226 CONSlIIU'riQN OF INDIA IN ZHS MATTiSROE- PROMOTION. PEIITIOIffiIR '1.-^'" RESPONDENTSsd L, ,^/ ^ <^y /^^^ VIIAS PMBHAKAR JOGALBKA.R, S|0 IATE SHRI PRABHA&A.R RAMCTIANmA - JOGALEKAR, ASED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R|0 394, MODBL TOWN, NEHARU NAGAR,DURG^P). POSTBD AND VOHKBiG AS OFFICER - I, (ACCOUNIS.) DURG,RAJNAITOSAON GRAMIN 8AK HSAD OFFICE: RAJNAND.3AON. VERSUS. DUBG RAJNANDGAON GRA.i'IIN BANK THROUGH: ITS CHAim'IAN, HMD OB'FICE s a.E.ROAD, M.P.HOU31NG BQARD 3HOPPING COMPLEX, RAJNANOGAON,DISTT; RAJNANDQAON(MP );491441. (2) ?»' .»l^ ^JN BOARD OF DIRECTORS, Durg-Rajnandgaon Gramln Banlc, at Its Head Offiee, S.E.Road, B.P.Housing Boardy Sbogg^ing Coaplex, Ba3nan<igaon^i^±rtct: RajJEiandgaon Tfarougft - Its Chairman. (3) SHRI R.K.NEELAY S/0 NOT KNOWN Aged about 39 years, Senlor.Manager, Posted at Branch Deor-i, Durg-Rajnandgaon Gramln Banlc, (4) SHRI A.K.DUBEY S/o Not known Aged about 38 Years, Sena-or Manager, Durg-Rajnandgaon GraminBantt, Branch - Kurud, Post - Kurud, Tahsil & DistriGf •• Durg. .... pag< 2) "-S, ^ ^ ^ Vrf' (5) Shri A.C.Verma S/o Hot Knowa Senior Area Manager posfed as Senior Manager Audlt and Inspect.i.on, Durg-Ra,jnafldgaon Graain Bank, Head 0££1.0e Rajnandgaon G.E.Ro d, M.P.Housing Bogyd» Shopping Coaplex, Rajnandgaon, Disbrlct : Rajnagdgaon, (6) Shri R.K.Kukreja, Senior Manager (AeGGunts), Head Of.Eioe,Durg-Rajna^dgaon GEramin Bauk, Rajnai^dgaon. G.E.:Road, W.P.Hous.Lng Board, Shopping Complex, Rajiiandgaon (MP). (7) Shri Sanjay Kadaa, Senior ^Magager (Personnel) Head Office ; Durg Rajnandgaoja GraminBank, RajnaQdgaoA. District '• Rajnaadgaon ( :.p.) (8) Shr-i. J.K.S.hu]sla,S/o Shri R.P.Shukla, Senior Maaager, Durg Rajnaudgaon Gramin Bank, M.P.H.B.Industriai Colony, ChJaa'.<ani, Distt; Durg ( M.P.) • reiT UNDEB.ABTIGI£._226_ CO^T_ITUTMM_OF_INDIA_ A N B IN THB M&TTER OF PROMOIION OF IBS PETITIOIMEB. ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 5121 of2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS Vilas Prabhakar Joglekar Durg Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank & others Shri Amiakant Tiwari counsel for the petitioner. Shri P. S. Koshy, counsel forthe respondents. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (21.10.2010) In the present petition the petitioner has prayed for his promotion to the post of Area Manager/Senior Manager. According to the petitioner though he is senior to respondent Nos. 3 to 8, ignoring his case respondent Nos. 3 to 8 were promoted to the higher post. 2. It is admitted by the counsel for both the parties that their bank has followed the guidelines framed by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 under the un-amended rules as per circular dated 01.12.1987 (Annexure P-6). Counsel appearing for the parties also agree that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Haraovind Yadav v. Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank and others (2006 AIR SCW 2822) and also the decision of this Court in W.P. No. 1233 of 1997 (Laxmi KantSahu v. Dura Rainandaaon Gramin Bank and others). In the case of Hargovind Yadav (supra) it has been held by the Supreme Court as under: "21. The next question that an'ses for consideration is the relief to be granted. The appellant was first considered for promotion during 1991 and was not promoted, by wrongly adopting the phnciple of meht- cum seniority. The said procedure was found to be <^~)^>1 - 2-- ?i erroneous by the single Judge, Division Bench and by this Court. The Bank was directed to consider the case ofAppellant forpromotion on the basis of seniority-cum merit. Thereafter, in the contempt proceedings initiated by the appellant, the Bank undertook to comply with the order directing consideration of the appellant's case by the procedure of seniority-cum-meht. But the Bank, again by adopting the merit-cum-seniohty method, failed to promote the appellant and promoted third respondent. The procedure adopted by the Bank had been found to be faulty on three occasions by this Court and the High Court one of which was in the case of Appellant himself. The appellant had been denied promotion for more than 16 . years by repeatedly adopting such an erroneous procedure. In the circumstances, we do not think it necessary to dhve the appellant once again to face the process of selection for promotion. This Court in Comptroller and Auditor General of India v. K.S. Jagannathan {1986 (2) SCC 679} observed thus: "There is thus no doubt that the High Courts in India exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and given necessary directions where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy-decision of the Govemment or has exercised such discretion mala fide or on irrelevant considerations or by ignohng the relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of conferhng such discretion or the policy for implementing which such discretion has been conferred. In all such cases and in any other fit or proper case a High Court can, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, issue a writ of mandamus or a wrif /n e nature of mandamus or pass orders and given directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the government or a public authority, and in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned party, the Court may itself pass an order or give directions which the government or the public authohty should have passed or given had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion." Having regard to the factual background of the case, and having regard to the fact that even under the merit- cum-seniority basis adopted by the bank the appellant had secured high marks and he was denied promotion on the ground that he failed to secure minimum marks in the interview, there is no need to refer the matter for fresh consideration. With a view to complete justice in u^ -3- exercise of our power under Article 142 we hereby direct the first respondent Bank to promote the appellant as a Field Supervisor, from the date the third defendant was promoted as Field Supervisor and place him above the third Respondent. However, he will be entitled to monetary benefits flowing from such promotion onlyprospectively though the pay is to be re- fixed with reference to the retrospective date of promotion." 3. Accordingly, this petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion in accordance with the directions given by the Supreme Court in the matter of Hargovind Yadav (supra). Sd/- pritinker Diwakar Judge