SBCWP4098/1997 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4098/1997 {Bajrang Lal Meena Vs. Rajasthan State Cooperative Tribunal, Jaipur and Others} Date of Order ::: 09.02.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Counsel for petitioner Shri Achintya Kaushik for Shri R.B. Mathur, Counsel for respondent No.2 Shri Tej Prakash Sharma, Counsel for respondent No.3 Ms. Shweta Pareek for Shri Sanjay Pareek, Counsel for respondent No.5 #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for parties. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Bajrang Lal Meena challenging order dated 07.04.1997 (Annexure-2) passed by Rajasthan State Cooperative Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Appeals No.38/1995, 46/1995 and 47/1995, filed against Award dated 06.07.1995 (Annexure-1), rendered by Arbitrator under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, (for short, 'the Act of 1965'), and thereby Award of Arbitrator was set-aside. By the aforesaid SBCWP4098/1997 // 2 // Award, the Arbitrator had directed that the petitioner be promoted on the post of L.D.C., with effect from 12.11.1987. Shri Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner, has argued that the Tribunal has not correctly construed the provisions contained in the Urban Cooperative Bank Employees Service Rules, 1987, (for short, 'the Rules of 1987') which were adopted by the respondent Cooperative Bank, especially Appendix A annexed thereto. A perusal of said Appendix-A shows that it was meant for direct recruitment and not for promotion. Learned counsel referred to Rule 35 of the Rules of 1987 and argued that all previous action in respect of appointment, promotions, confirmations and other service matters taken prior to the existing Rules shall deemed to have been taken under these Rules, and that by virtue of adoption of these Rules, the ad-hoc or temporary promotion granted earlier under the Scheme of the Rules, can be relaxed upto the qualification of high school subject to of- course with the approval of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. In the present case, the Tribunal ought to have, therefore, directed for promotion of the petitioner even if he was SBCWP4098/1997 // 3 // possessing qualification of Prathma, which was equivalent, as per the learned counsel, to the secondary school certificate. The learned counsel further argued that private respondents No.4 and 5, namely, Harikishan Sharma and Rupchand Suman were also not commerce graduate and, therefore, if the petitioner could not be given promotion, their promotions also should have been set-aside. In this connection, learned counsel referred to the order passed by appellate Tribunal to argue that the Tribunal has given finding with regard to respondent No.4 Harikishan Sharma that he was commerce graduate, which is factually incorrect. The learned counsel relied on the notice issued by the Personal Department of the Bank of Rajasthan Limited dated 11.11.1995, to argue that the employee, who possessed matriculate/S.S.C. or equivalent with experience, was considered as eligible for promotion from Class-IV to the post of L.D.C., and middle passed with experience of 10 years was also considered as eligible for promotion. Such similar provision also exists in various service Rules of different Banks. It is, therefore, prayed that respondents be directed to set-aside the order dated 07.04.1997 of the SBCWP4098/1997 // 4 // Tribunal and the Award dated 06.07.1995 be restored. Learned counsel for respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that Tribunal has rightly allowed the appeals because the Award passed by the learned Arbitrator was contrary to law. So long as the petitioner was not qualified or eligible, he could not be promoted. The promotion granted to private respondents on ad-hoc basis prior to adoption of the Rules of 1987 was by virtue of Rule 35 thereof and, therefore, the Tribunal justified in not allowing their appeals. The learned counsel further argued that Schedule appended to the Rules of 1987 is applicable for both promotions as well direct recruitment because there is no other Rule on the subject and it cannot be said that Rule was silent as to the qualification. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Although, it may be true that private respondents are also not commerce graduate but their promotion, may be on adhoc basis, was initially made respectively on SBCWP4098/1997 // 5 // 21.08.1986 and 02.12.1987. It was because of that reason that promotion was not interfered by the Tribunal. However, neither before the Tribunal nor before this Court the petitioner could show that qualification for promotion to the post of L.D.C. was that of secondary school certificate or equivalent qualification like Prathma possessed by him. Subsequently, it was informed that the petitioner also has been promoted with some delay but before more than a decade. I, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//