^ CF0000110407 ^ ^ '•^ l^ i^to ^^Kg^ HI&H COUaa; GE' M.©HXAPS.iiDESH AT S&B&i.PUB. Misc. Petition No ^ Of 1993 PET-I'fIOSER: tanesh Bam Dahariya, aged about 35 years, son of Shri Banmali Dahariya, occupation; Clerte-caa-C ashier, Bilaspur-. Baipur Kshetriya Q-ramin Bante, Bra.nch - Eunteli, tahsil - Mungeli, District- Bilaspur. r/o village-- fflinteli, tahsil- Mungeli, Stett. Bilaspur (M.P.) Versus BESPO.EIDigHISs 1. Bilaspur^iaipur Kshetriya Gramin Baiifc, Head-offioe Dayalband, Bllaspur, Throughs its Ghairma&« A ^ ^e-y \"y ^ ^3> -' :.'<' ?^y^> ' -.'5-s~\W°C° .e^~ ^?-"' $2. Sb.vi S.I,. Ajgale, Field Super-visor, Bilaspur^Sslpur Eshetriya Sraain. BaEic Braoch. at Blrra, vla. - Ghamga, Dlstriot" - Bilaspur (M.P'.) ^5/. Shri A.K. Bhelwa, Bilaspur- Haipur Kshetrlya'Gramin. Bank Branch - Birra, yia-CtiaBpa, Dis-trict - Bilaspur (M.P.) (d. Shri Dayaraia Dhrav, Bilaspur. Baipur Kshetriya Gramin Baiits: Branch - Bimdha, via-Pendra, Dlstrict - Bilaspar (M«P.) Q^? . PETI'EION UBDER A&S'ICLES 326 & 287. QB* THE GONSTITUTION OF IM)IA FOB ISSUAHG:E_ CT-\ gBII IN SHB M20BE GBISIO. -ajffii/MiK&AMus aa ANX OZBER IT QR wiis, OBDESR OR OBD.gaS. DIBKSTION 05 DraECS'IONS. HIGHCOURTOF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA^. WRITPETITIQN N0.4308/19S3 Petitioner Ganesh Ram Dahanya Resoondents Versus Bilaspur-Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Others .^. POST FOR ORDER ON 28 SEPTEMBER^2010 Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ;:S^2h» ^fei •ss^sss. /-^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Sjnale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, <J. W81T PETITION N0.4308/1993 Ganesh Ram Dahariya Versus Bilaspur-Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Others Petitioner Respondents Petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India Present:- Smt. tndira Tripathi, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pramod Verma, Senior Advocate with Shri Sumit Verma, counse! for respondent No.1. ORDER (Passed on 2^/09/2010) By this petition, ttie petitioner calls in question the correctness and vaiidity of action of the respondent No.1-the Regionat Rural Bank, respondents No.2 to 4 on the post of Supervisor vide impugned order 11-1990 (Annexure P-4) and non promotion of the petrtioner. The petitioner has sought relief that impugned order dated 20-11-190) may be quashed and the respondents be directed to grant promotion to the petitioner on the post of Fietci Supervisor with effect from 20-11-1990 with all consequential benefits of seniority, pay, arrears ete. (2) Case of the petitioner is that as the petitioner had completed minimum required number of years on the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier, he was entitled to be promoted to the post of Field supervisor under the provisions of the relevant service rules namely the Regional Rurat Bante (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Other Employees) Rutes, 1988 (hereinafter referred to EIS "the Rules of 1988") and relevant service regulations framed by the Bank known as Bilaspur-Raipur Gramin Bank Staff Senrice Regulations, 1980 •-;^^.. -\ .-^ , referred to as "the regutations of 1980"). Grievance of the petitioner is friat against the available vacancy for promotion, respondents iilegaiiy denied tde legitimate claim of the petitioner by promoting respondent No.2 on She post of Field Supervisor, who had bad record. It is alleged that earlier respondent No.2 was promoted from the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier to the post of Field Supervisor and as his work was not satisfactory and there were allegations of commission of grave misconduct, relating to embezzlement and unauthorized absence from duties, due to which, he was reverted in the year 1987. It is submitted that in view of past bad service record, respondent No.1 had committed illegality in promoting respondent No.2 whereas in his placs, petitioner ought to be promoted. Other submission of leamed counsel for the petitioner is that respondents No.3 & 4 are junior to the petitioner, and therefore, Uiey could not have been promoted against available vacancy of Field Supervisor, ignoring and superceding the petitioner. (3) On the other hand, submission of learned counsel for No.1 is that promotions to the post of Field Supervisor are governed isy She provisions of the Rules of 1988 and the promotions have to be made upon selection wherein criteria is seniority-cum-merit. It is submitted that the petitioner and other eligible Clerks had participated in the process of selection and upon assessment, the petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste categony, iwas placed at S.No.4 and respondent No.2 was placed above the petitioner at S.No.3, because upon assessment of record, it was found that both had secured equal marks. The respondent No.2 was placed at S.No.4 over and above th© petitioner in the gradation list. Respondent No.2 was placed over and abave the petitioner on the basis of seniority-cum-merit in the selected tist of Scheduted Caste candidates. tt is further submitted that no charge sheet has been given to respondent No.2 and upon assessment of previous three years annua! confidential reports, respondent No.2 was found fit for promotion having securea 60 marks. Further submission of learned counsel for the respondent No.1 is that in so far as respondents No.3 and 4 are concerned, they betong to Scheduled Tribe category and have been promoted against vacancies reseived fcr Scheduled Tribe category of candidates and the petitioner is therefore nct justified in raising grievance on account of his non-promotion on the ground that the respondents No.3 and 4 are juniors to him. (4) I have given my anxious consideration to submission of the learned counsel forthe parties and perused the records. to (5) Respondents have stated in their return that the petitioner respondents No.2 to 4 and other candidates were considered for promotfon the next higher post of Supervisor against the available vacancies for promotion and their suitability were assessed according to the rules which includeci assessment of performance reports, interview ete. by a duly constitutec committee. In so far as criteria of seniority-cum-merit are concemed, it is not in dispute that the rules provided for promotion by applying the criteria of seniority- cum-merit. Though, it has been alleged by the petitioner that sen/ice rec< respondent No.2 is bad, the respondents in their retum have categorically stated that the merits of respondent No.2 were considered by a duly constituted committee by applying the criteria of assessment and they have aiso demonstrated by placing merit tist of Scheduled Caste candidates wherein respondent No.2 has been placed at S.No.3 ofthe select list. Respondenis have specifically denied that any charge sheet was issued to the respondent No.2. The petitioner has not placed on record any material to show that charge sheet was issued to the respondent No.2. In the absence of any other materia! available on record, it is difficult for this Court to accept the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.2 was not found frt for promotion. From the meri} list placed before this Court, it is found that the petitioners as well as respondent No.2 have secured 60 marks in the assessment of their merit during the course of selection. The petitioner has also not disputed that respondent No.2 is> senior to him, who is placed at S.No.4 whereas petitioner is placed at S.No.7 in the gradation list. (6) In so far as petitioner's claim for promotion on the ground that his junior respondents No.3 & 4 have been promoted, respondents have categoricatly averred in their return that for the purpose of promotion, resen/ations were to be made and were actually made. It has been submitted that according to the Rules of 1988, 50% post of Fietd Supervisor are to be filled up by way of' direct recruitment and 50% post are to be filled up by way of promotion from amongst confirmed senior and junior Clerk-cum-Cashier or Clerk-cum-typist or Stenographer or Stenographer-cum-Typist on the basis of seniority-cum-merits. The same is also reflected from the perusal ofthe Rules of 1988. (7) Respondents have placed on record the circulars, directions and guidelines of the government and other authorities providing for reservation in the matter of promotion to various posts in the Regional Rura! Banks. Out of seven vacancies available for being filled up by way of promotion, (wo vacancies were earmarked for Scheduled Caste and two vacancies were earmart;ed for Scheduled Tribe. Respondents No.3 & 4 are those candidates, who betong 60 reserved category of Scheduled Tribe. From the iist of Scheduied Tribe candidates placed on record, respondents No.3 & 4 are shown to have been placed at S.No.1 &2. '-». S6i ^ (8) In this petition, the petitioner has not assaited the action of the respondents in making reservation in promotion. In fact, the petitioner himself belongs to Scheduled Caste category. In the absence of any challenge to the reservation in promotion, the peb'tioner cannot make out a grievance against promoh'on against reserved vacancies and filling of those vacancies by candidates belonging to the reserved category on ~the ground that they are juniors. (9) No other grounds have been urged. (10) In view of the aforesaid discussion, l do not flnd merit in this petition which is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. —— Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judse TUB1ANE