CWP No.12068 of 1990 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CWP No.12068 of 1990 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.07.2010 Nawal Singh Yadav ....Petitioner Versus The Gurgaon Gramin Bank and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Alok Singh, J.(Oral) Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging order of promotion of respondents No.3 to 11 dated 27.7.1989 and further seeking writ of mandamus commanding respondents No.1 and 2 to promote the petitioner from the date his juniors were promoted as Senior Clerk-cum-Cashier. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner was working in Gurgaon Gramin Bank, Sector 4, Gurgaon – respondent No.1 as Junior Clerk-cum-Cashier; petitioner was appointed on 30.2.1984; petitioner was instrumental in the huge deposits and recovery of the loan; CWP No.12068 of 1990 2 petitioner’s Annual Confidential Reports are all outstanding and no adverse remark of any kind has ever been communicated to the petitioner; in the year 1989, respondent No.1 wanted to promote employees belonging to different cadres Junior Clerk-cum-Cashier to Senior Clerk-cum-Cashier; norms category wise in accordance with the Staff Service Regulations were framed by the bank, copy of which is Annexure P-11. There were 164 eligible candidates as on 31.3.1989 who were considered for promotion from the post of Junior Clerk-cum-Cashier to the post of Senior Clerk-cum- Cashier. As per the norms/guidelines Annexure P-11, 70 marks were fixed for seniority at the rate of 10 marks for the first four completed years of service and 5 marks for subsequent each completed year of service subject to a maximum of 70 marks and 30 marks were fixed for performance i.e. 15 marks for each calendar year of performance for the last two calendar years. Petitioner was at Serial No.74 of the seniority list; petitioner was more qualified than respondents No.3 to 11 for promotion as per the norms/guidelines Annexure P-11. However, ignoring the petitioner, respondents No.3 to 11 were promoted; petitioner made appeal, however, the same was rejected on 6.4.1990. Feeling aggrieved for not granting promotion to the petitioner and promoting respondents No.3 to 11, who are junior to the petitioner, present petition is filed. Detailed reply was filed to the writ petition by respondents No.1 and 2. Main defence of respondents No.1 and 2 is that a Selection Committee was formulated to consider all the eligible candidates for promotion as per the norms/guidelines Annexure P-11. As per the norms/guidelines, marks were granted to all the eligible candidates and the petitioner stood lower in rank as per the marks granted. Hence, he was not CWP No.12068 of 1990 3 granted promotion in the year 1989 and the respondents who secured higher marks were granted promotion. However, in a subsequent selection, petitioner secured more marks and he was promoted vide Annexure R-2. It is further asserted that the criteria of promotion is not seniority-cum-merit but the criteria is merit-cum-seniority and merit was adjudged of all the eligible candidates as per norms/guidelines Annexure P-11. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that promotion was to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and not as per merit-cum-seniority. The further argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while granting marks, norms/guidelines were not followed and petitioner was intentionally granted lower marks to deprive him for the promotional post. No tabulation of marks granted by the Selection Committee is available on the record. In the absence of any tabulation, it is not possible for this Court to find out what marks were given to the petitioner and what marks were given to respondents No.3 to 11. On being asked repeatedly, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that since petitioner was senior to others, he should have been granted more marks than respondents No.3 to 11. This Court is not convinced at all with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In paragraph 19 of the writ petition, petitioner himself has stated that 70 marks were fixed for seniority at the rate of 10 marks for the first four completed years of service and 5 marks for subsequent each completed year of service subject to a maximum of 70 marks and 30 marks were fixed for performance i.e. 15 marks for each calendar year of performance for the last two calendar years. Learned CWP No.12068 of 1990 4 counsel for the petitioner states that all bungling was made while granting 30 marks fixed for performance. Paragraph 21A of the reply reads as under: - “21A. Denied. The petitioner was considered for promotion alongwith other eligible candidates. However, on the basis of his assessment for the relevant two years i.e. 1987 and 1988, he had ranked lower in merit than other candidates and as such has not selected for promotion. It is most respectfully submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to any preference to respondents No.3 to 11 in the matter of departmental promotions.” Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to refute the contentions made in paragraph 21A of the reply. If criteria was seniority-cum-merit and all the marks as per the seniority were granted correctly and marks for the merits were granted lesser to the petitioner judging his merit and performance of last two years, then it cannot be said that the petitioner was discriminated and was denied promotion illegally. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show that in the year 1987-88, petitioner’s record was better than respondents No.3 to 11 and petitioner was intentionally granted lower marks for the performance of last two years. Petition is devoid of merit and hence is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 09.07.2010 sk.