[1] DBSAW 693/2000 & 5 OTHER SAW IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. JUDGMENT (1) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.693/2000 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2268/1996 S.L. TAILOR Vs. THE ARAVALI KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK & ORS. (2) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 847/2000 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2270/1996 THE CHAIRMAN BARODA RAJASTHAN GRAMIN BANK Vs. PRAKASH CHAND & ORS. (3) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 848/2000 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2271/1996 THE CHAIRMAN BARODA RAJASTHAN GRAMIN BANK Vs. RAJENDRA MOHAN SHARMA & ORS. (4) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 918/2000 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2238/1996 THE CHAIRMAN BARODA RAJASTHAN GRAMIN BANK Vs. RAJAN GANDHI & ORS. (5) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 919/2000 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2268/1996 THE CHAIRMAN BARODA RAJASTHAN GRAMIN BANK Vs. RAVINDRA SINGH & ORS. (6) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 920/2000 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2269/1996 THE CHAIRMAN BARODA RAJASTHAN GRAMIN BANK Vs. RAM NIWAS BAIRWA & ORS. Date: 09.07.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK PARIHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI [2] DBSAW 693/2000 & 5 OTHER SAW Mr. R.K. Kala and Mr. Virendra Lodha, Advocates for the appellants. Mr. Amod Kasliwal, Advocate for the respondents. **** Since on same set of facts common judgment dated 09.05.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge is under challenge, all the appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common order. The dispute is in regard to promotion to the post of Officer Scale-II from the post of Officer Scale-I for the year 1995. Admittedly under the rules, the criteria for promotion has been fixed as seniority-cum-merit, however, the erstwhile Aravali Kshetriya Gramin Bank issued a Circular on dated 14.03.1996 fixing the separate criteria for selection to the post in question. On the basis of the criteria so fixed, promotions were also made vide order dated 22.04.1996. The learned Single Judge while considering the entire scheme of the promotion as applicable on the employees of the concerned Bank as also the directions and guidelines issued by the NABARD in regard to the promotions of the employees of the respective Gramin Banks, held that the criteria so fixed by the Bank was not in consonance with the basic principles of seniority-cum-merit, as held by the Supreme Court also in the case of B.V. Sivaiah Vs. Addanki Babu, (1998) 6 SCC 720. Thereby while quashing the circular dated 14.03.1996 the learned Single Judge also set-aside the promotions made to [3] DBSAW 693/2000 & 5 OTHER SAW certain employees vide impugned order dated 22.04.1996. The learned Single Judge however protected the promotion of one of the candidate on the ground that in SC category, he was the only eligible candidate. As per the interim directions of this Court in present appeals the Bank has already made entire exercise of holding review DPC as per the criteria fixed under the relevant regulations in compliance of the directions issued by learned Single Judge however, result has not been declared so far. As has come on record during pendency of the present appeals the erstwhile Aravali Kshetriya Gramin Bank and some other Gramin Banks have been merged with the Baroda Rajasthan Gramin Bank vide Notification dated 03.02.2006 and the seniority of the employees of the banks after amalgamation have also been fixed as per the scheme of the amalgamation. Be that as it may, the present promotions relate to year 1995 and the concerned Bank had already made the exercise as per the directions of the learned Single Judge. It may also be pertinent to mention here that under similar circumstances, the Hadoti Kshetriya Gramin Bank also made promotions for the year 1995 and the judgment of the learned Single Judge quashing the criteria fixed by the Bank as also the promotions made consequent thereof have been upheld by the Division Bench in [4] DBSAW 693/2000 & 5 OTHER SAW case of Hadoti Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Kota Vs. Lokendra Kumar Gupta & Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal [Writ] No. 485/2003) along with other connected appeals decided on 14.02.2008. The Division Bench while relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Harigovind Yadav Vs. Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank & Ors., (2006) 6 SCC 145, also observed that consideration on the basis of comparative merit merely with reference to total marks obtained by the eligible candidates can never be treated in consonance with the principle of seniority-cum-merit. Having considered entire facts and circumstances, we find no error or illegality in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. As has already been discussed above, since whole exercise has already been made by holding review DPC by the concerned Bank, the result of the same may now be declared and necessary orders, if required, be passed in regard to promotion to the selected candidates. The subsequent seniority of the promoted persons may be fixed as per the scheme of amalgamation effected in the year 2006 and further promotions, if any, may also be made accordingly. It is further clarified that in the meanwhile if any person already having worked on the promoted post and now do not succeed after declaring the results, though he is to be reverted back to the original position however, no recovery be made from his [5] DBSAW 693/2000 & 5 OTHER SAW salary for the period he had worked on the promoted post. The entire exercise be made and necessary orders be passed within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. All the appeals are disposed of accordingly. (K.S. CHAUDHARI),J. (ASHOK PARIHAR),J. /KKC/