IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11692 of 2002 DIWAKAR PRASAD & ORS Versus THA NALANDA GRAMIN BANK & ORS For the Petitioners: Dr. S.N. Jha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Adv. For the State : Mr. Sunil Kr. Singh-1, Adv. Mr. Kumar Shailesh, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Ranjan, Adv. For the Intervenors:Mr. Shashi Anugrah Narain. Sr. Adv. ----------- 13/ 31/03/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Nalanda Gramin Bank and the intervenors. A cluster of Regional Rural Banks are classified together under a nationalized bank given the nomenclature of a sponsor/lead Bank. In this case the sponsor bank is the Punjab National Bank. The issue concerns the up-gradation of a Regional Rural Bank and the consequent creation of a post from Class-1 to Class-2 under the promotion rules effective from 29.7.1998. Under the promotion rules, as framed in 1988 the Class-2 posts were referred to as Area Manager/Senior Manager. The up-gradation of a Regional Rural Bank leading to creation of the superior post takes place based on the financial transaction figures. In the present case, it is not in controversy that the issue of up-gradation is 2 being considered on the basis of the financial transaction figures as on 31.3.1998. If that be so, the next question is- whether the consequent up-gradation of the branch and creation of the superior post for promotions shall be governed by the promotion rules as framed in 1988 or shall they be governed by the new promotion rules effective from 29.7.1998. If the promotional posts have been quantified and created or deemed to be so prior to 29.7.1998, they are required to be considered under the 1988 rules. But, if the up-gradation and consequent creation of posts takes place after 29.7.1998, promotions shall have to be considered on the basis of the amended rules. The claim of the petitioners is that since the up-gradation is to be determined on the basis of financial transaction figures as on 31.3.1998, the up-gradation and consequent promotions to the newly created posts has to be considered under the 1988 rule as they are deemed to be created prior to 29.7.1998. If the petitioners are correct in their contention, that the branches stood up-graded on the basis of the transaction figures of 31.3.1998, though the proposal may have been sent after 29.7.1998, they are correct in their contention. But, what happens if such up-gradation does not take place or is declined for specified reasons. That is the question for 3 consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to a letter of the sponsor bank dated 7.10.1998 at Annexure-2 submitted that the proposal which was sent for up-gradation of branches and consequent creation of promotional posts based on financial transactions as on 31.3.1998, in the enclosed list contained the names of 13 branches in all, including the branches where the petitioners were working. He submits that the proposal relates to the period 1996-1997 to 1997-1998. Building up the argument from the same it was submitted with reference to annexure-6, a letter dated 14.12.1999 issued by the Punjab National Bank, that vacancies which arose consequent to up-gradation of branches based on figures as on 31.3.1998 are required to be considered under the old promotion rules of 1988 in terms of the letter of NABARD dated 20.3.1993. Drawing sustenance from a letter dated 2.5.2000 at annexure-7 it was submitted that this letter removes all cobwebs and clarifies explicitly that these thirteen branches (mentioned in the letter dated 7.10.1998) based on the financial figures as on 31.3.1998 were required to be considered under the old promotion rules. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank has invited the attention of the Court to a communication 4 dated 16.12.1998, at annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on their behalf. It encloses the very list of branches enclosed with the letter dated 7.10.1998 (annexure-2) relied upon by the petitioners. The communication dated 16.12.1998 states that on examining the working figures of the 13 branches recommended for up-gradation, for two specified reasons, to the satisfaction of the Punjab National Bank mentioned therein, the proposal for up- gradation did not find concurrence. Observations were then made to submit a fresh proposal after March-1999 incorporating figures of deposits and advances for the year ended 1999 for fresh consideration. It was, therefore, submitted on behalf of the respondents that the issue of up-gradation is purely an administrative issue to be decided on fulfillment of certain parameters. Once the lead bank has passed a reasoned order spelling out the circumstances and conditions for which the up-gradation did not find concurrence, it shall not be the jurisdiction of this Court under Article-226 of the Constitution of India to sit in judgement over the same by re-appraisal of administrative materials considered by the Punjab National Bank while rejecting such a proposal. Learned counsel for the petitioners while admitting that the petitioners have not assailed the order 5 dated 16.12.1998 declining up-gradation, submitted that it has to be read along with the letters dated 7.10.1998 (annexure-2), 14.12.1999 (annexure-6) and 2.5.2000 (annexure-7). This Court is afraid that the three letters sought to be relied upon by the petitioners do not create a right in themselves in a vacuum. If the proposal for up- gradation had not been rejected on 16.12.1998, the petitioners would have been absolutely correct in their submissions. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Once the basic requirements of up-gradation is missing, any explanation or discussion or clarifications with regard to the up-gradation of those who fulfil the qualifications, shall certainly not be available to those who do not fulfil qualifications for such up-gradation. The Court is concerned with the decision making process and the requirement for ‘reasons’. Once there is no infirmity in the process and reasons have been assigned, it shall not be the jurisdiction of this Court to sit in administrative reassessment of the order dated 16.12.1998. In view of the aforesaid discussions by this Court, it has no hesitation in holding that there is no merit in the writ application. It is accordingly rejected. At this stage the Court is informed by the 6 counsel for the respondents that, in fact, in pursuance of the rejection of the proposal for up-gradation on 16.12.1998, the respondent bank has, in fact, sent a fresh proposal after March, 1999. This Court makes no observations with regard to the same as it is beyond the pale of the present controversy. The application is dismissed. KC (Navin Sinha, J.)