IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5425 of 2011 ============================================= Arvind Kumar Sinha, s/o- Late Bisheshawar Prasad, r/o- Ram Sahay Lane, P.s.- Sultanganj, Patna-800006. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Reserve Bank Of India, through its Governor, Central Office, Mumbai. 2. The Executive Director, DAPM, Reserve Bank of India, Central Office, Mumbai. 3. The Chief General Manager, H.R.D.D., Reserve Bank of India, Central Office, Mumbai. 4. The Regional Director, Reserve Bank of India, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ============================================= Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s : M/s Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate Kaushal Kumar Jha ============================================= 7 18-10-2011 Petitioner questions the sustainability of order contained in letter dated 22.6.2010 (Annexure-20) whereby his appeal was considered and rejected. This application is also directed against the order dated 7.1.2010 (Annexure-18) issued under the signature of the respondent Deputy General Manager, Department of Administration and Personnel Management, Reserve Bank of India whereby his representation seeking out of turn promotion was considered and rejected. Petitioner having been appointed as Clerk Grade-II-cum- Coin-Note Examiner Grade-II in the year 1984, claimed out of turn promotion on the ground that he is a Chess player of international repute and has represented Bihar at National level 2 and also India at international level. The Reserve Bank of India (for short “R.B.I.”) has a staff promotion policy for out of turn promotion/increments for outstanding Sports personnel circulated vide Annexure-2. He made his claim for out of turn promotion in accordance with the aforesaid promotion policy which was considered and rejected. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, he moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 14179 of 2003. This Court, by a proceeding dated 7.8.2009 passed on the said writ petition (Annexure-15), disposed of the said application whereby the order rejecting his claim for out of turn promotion was set aside and the concerned authority of the R.B.I. was directed to re-decide the issue objectively by a speaking order. Relevant part of the order reads as under: “…… I am left with no option but to set aside the decision of the Reserve Bank of India refusing to give out of turn promotion to the petitioner on grounds “exceptional achievement” in sports and direct the Regional Director, who is the competent authority or any authority, which is competent to decide this issue within the Reserve Bank of India to re-decide the issue objectively by a speaking order. They may seek whatever clarification that they require from the petitioner. I must clarify one thing that merely because the petitioner has already been promoted to the post to which he was otherwise entitled as a out of turn promotion will not deny petitioner out of turn promotion. If he is granted the right of getting out of turn promotion then the effect would be that a person promoted would be deemed to be preponed in time to the date of his entitlement” 3 Petitioner, thereafter, filed a representation on 21.8.2009 (Annexure-17). The said representation was considered and disposed of by an order dated 7.1.2010 (Annexure-18) whereby the claim for out of turn promotion was rejected. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a representation (Annexure-19) before the respondent No. 1 which was considered and rejected. Rejection of the representation was communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 22.6.2010 (Annexure-20) issued under the signature of the Manager, Personnel leading to filing of the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the provisions contained in the promotion policy (Annexure-2), he is entitled to be considered for grant of out of turn promotion since Chess finds mention in the annexures appended to Clause-2 of the promotion policy. Relying on averments made in paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 of the writ petition, it is contended that since he has represented the country as a playing member at various levels and even at international tournaments, he is entitled to be considered for grant of out of turn promotion. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent R.B.I. to oppose the claim of the petitioner. It is 4 submitted that the promotion scheme as contained in Annexure-2 bestows certain privilege which has to be considered strictly in terms of the provisions contained in the policy/scheme (Annexure- 2). Petitioner did not fulfill the criteria laid down in the above said circular/scheme and as such his case was considered and rejected after proper examination. Since the claim of the petitioner is founded on the circular/promotion policy/scheme as contained in H.R.D. circular No. 4/99/2000 (Annexure-2), it is apt to quote relevant provisions thereof as contained in Clause 2 under the caption “Out of Turn Promotion” which read as under: “An employee of the Bank who has rendered not less than two years service in the Bank, may be considered eligible for one out-of-turn promotion in the employee’s entire career, if the employee fulfils any one or more of the following conditions:- (a) The employee has been awarded a National Sports Award, such as Arjuna Award or Rajiv Gandhi Khel-Ratna Award; (b) The employee has represented the country as a playing member or as a reserve player in a game recognized by the Bank (listed in the Annexure) in any of the international tournaments; namely, the Olympics/Asian Games/ Commonwealth Games/SAARC Games/SAF Games/ World Cup Tournaments/Champions Trophy Tournament or in a Cricket Test/One-Day International Series. (c) The employee has represented the State as a playing member (i.e. having actually played on the field) in a game recognized by the Bank (listed in the Annexure) at the national level for not less than five years and the employee or 5 his/her team has, during these five years, won two medals either as winner or as runners-up in an individual or in a team event.” From a bare perusal of Clause 2(b), it appears that only those employee/candidate is entitled to be considered for out of turn promotion who has represented the country as a playing member or as a reserved player in a game recognized by the R.B.I. in any of the international tournaments namely the Olympics/Asian Games/ Commonwealth Games/SAARC Games/SAF Games/ World Cup Tournaments/Champions Trophy Tournament or in a Cricket Test/One-Day International series. It is not the petitioner’s case that he represented the country as a playing member or as a reserved player in any one of the aforesaid games/tournaments. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that if that be the case then inclusion of Chess in the list of recognized game(s) would be redundant since Chess is not an event or game included in the Olympics/Asian Games/ Commonwealth Games/SAARC Games/SAF Games/ World Cup Tournaments/Champions Trophy Tournament. Learned counsel for the respondent R.B.I., on the other hand, submitted that a veteran in Chess selected for award such as Arjuna Award or Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna Award would be entitled to such out of turn promotion in terms of the provisions 6 contained in the out of turn promotion policy. On a perusal of the order contained in Annexure-18, it appears that claim of the petitioner for out of turn promotion has been turned down on the ground that his participation in the tournaments i.e. the Commonwealth Chess Championship is not covered by the scheme. It also states that none of the other achievements of the petitioner fulfill the requirement specified in the circular (Annexure-2). If the petitioner raises a claim based on the policy or scheme then such claim has to be considered strictly in terms of the provisions contained therein. I have already noticed that it is not the petitioner’s case that he was either awarded Arjuna Award or Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna Award in Chess and/or he represented the country as a playing member or as a reserved player in any of the tournaments specified in Clause 2(b) of the scheme/circular. It is further to be kept in focus that the policy as such is not under challenge. Petitioner has, in fact, founded his claim based on the aforesaid scheme (Annexure-2). In view of the reasons aforenoted, in my view, the application deserves to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed. PANKAJ KUMAR/- (Kishore K. Mandal, J)