IS« ^SSSSSHSSS iswssaaa !>sffiii-':S. •"j->^/.''"-'--"r'.ry -i r^-^^T'.i^—^^T^1^' .^^./^.^f^^V/^^/1^. CFO»I)(I110(163 p^t'.' 3I<_ £L.HJBi'C&pKS; ©F'MADH^'PRM^SH'- i^,3^aISOK^;.3^ .;^1.9®^; •&:.'£: KtL.Singfa,'"' ^:,. ••,. :',;:'^. •'; ^S/o Sfarj.:;MQiiQn ;Lal». -::•;,'•:'.:: agea. abau'fc 33'.-yeaES,;'- . ".-;:;- •-:.: :SrancH-Hattager,,'.; .: ,' " ';:,;'-:; Ourg-RaJri;ai^g^n; Grsnin '&aBfc,:, -anch'-'ViIlesge Borl, ::, 11.':' 'S£iC;i tf raacin.g.?. TaR. Durg, Bis-ft. Durg '(M»: u S 15^jaBrg RaJntaIsdgasa.GEartii.n: BanK,.: ,.fhB3ugh"s' Ch.aiEctan,: , ,; .:':~';1 He ad: Of.fiee M »P.Hous/iBg BQ srQ; Cen-fcre.:: G.E:.Eosd'» '. •.. ,.• ^.RaJngndQaoB' (H-.Pl. .. '' .:;. ••.'•- .'.»'TI%^^':.-Br'"::-;'-:;;••/.. ^•-(?r T^ ^.. •-. . l^'l. ..'2) NafiotiaI.Xank fer' Agriarltare &'.Rura.i:' Be:velopmeB.t,. ~:: 't;.,,;.' fhceugli ^s ,Se@ufy .MaRager> J '^ .Rfigional.'iSffice:,:; . . ;'. 1::.;'!. •' GuEuaaaaIt':C&ia'p:lex,. • . •''...< 34,: MalY±ya;'Nagar< ••,:, ,'1' .['::•.,• B&opa3.-.''(M'.g),.;" !: : • ..•:'''-' :'.,/ :^:.) ^S^^SS Maa- n a.^L^\^ :;)^0 \'.1 \ Sc^ Makers •'BsweT. ; : ^: E-l:Qt!tt-:VS>lQ0£»..''.".'':, -.Cuffa^'Kar^a1 .•.••'' ' BoiBbay,1 !'ftlabare3fafra) 4 );';EGOH6m^c: ^prks.; ;- .' • •.•Be'ff^Io'DEnsa'fe1'«.,••:'.:"'.' :' ' ~, • B aaK.ing^ .OiylsAOa*.;:: .., . ^tbroxah';'^ •',: I^Kln^ls't@i;.6f -;'::®o'¥'t*^o^^K3fi3-a»' ^::-:'N8w-Eg%a:»/..:'-::' .1: •^ua. tg^RisSgareiB; M :.3^1 ^^•^•^- •e; '^^s^t^^ &sSSS^^ -JU!,- ^^^^^^ssg^- tS9S' s-WSS»& stv:3w'K':/...U^-i'.:"K-~J"s '•.^^y'^f riftia;SS<I%H^^S8tS3?aS8SB;W&^ :^^^%^A^^%^€%l^^:^?^'^:i^'?;: 1-^ ^." [Vf€- alsto •GKaa.ila.aa,' GRinna;ttee,^ Begioij Osna'Banlt,^' /^ " -'-s^) Shrt R.S.Qodiawal (Member' Selec'tion X>ena BariK, ; .' ,^ Rukhmao.i. Bhawaa 7) '' Stirl'RaBe'''(Heml3erS,elec'feion :S.hQpABigseeB-£re^,®.E',Roaa* (8.»E], 'eBTIiaaH..@gDSB^S&23e£>(!§'..22£/2.2'Z;8^-:%S_ "^.eeiKSSl'i'E.TSIE^ei'^aaEllA^-..,^" :;••.';,;; Reserve •Bahk1 of .Inaiai rK.P^.e.B.,;^oga1^'1 8)~^'Shr3;-£':<>S'.In5Sr'fe®, ^ ''•' . •:, •' •: (Wetnber Setec'tloia Comml.ttee) '2S0xi.a;^Ba.^£_.....;',.',. ,'...'-•'..•.'^"': ',•';'. '-'awaft.ar'Kagar^ •• ';1 ,.:.' .. :1 ..Brancb .Re.ijmr /(M;.P5 .. •.•• ,.::;.. I.} S!^3C5, . ^»D:.ftD©S.t'lpclH^©> 'DespWby VtgRageCi' : :' ''•,•'., (Mentber.Selecttori CQiiBit^'ttee)' 34,' Kalv.iS'a Nagar* Bhopall:'<M.E>'. :. :. ' 1Q) Sfara:' RajesK 'Xutnac^Gaptg., .ftre-ay^eaioE ~Hanager,":w,; 11)' .Slifea.. Bav'a.la.,'Raiit's^aKu.»f ;Are.a,^ssni6r"yaB:age,r^ •..- ]ao'th'.fEest30i3(aeii-ta'"(3;)1 /& ^-'c/e.:Bla;F9".Kaj'Randg^n':^Qr^EtiB:.;BaH$Efr :a5 ~ anfie'r!: !&e.'pel;i.t3Qnery;gl33^'''naiiea:1^i^'.^^isaS^ ^K^^WS^ ^WysSSS^'^^&^ ~^'^^£^y.^is?^':^^\i^ 'itk:^^x:^i''si^^ i?^2fes^S£^';safi?-^^;:£y^' ^??s%--~^ i^&^M^^^^^^^^s ^^^^^^^^^^s^^^s^it Kl B! iiBIi Bi' ffil I:"/' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 4987 of 1989 Petitioner K. L. Siagh Versus Durg Rajnandgaon Gramin Bauk and ofhers Respondents Single Bench : HonTate Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. Shri Yashwant Tiwari, Advocate with Shri Ainiyakant Tiwari, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Sbri P. S. Koshy, Advocatc for fhe respondents. ORAL ORDER (17<iljuty,2006) The foUowing order ofthe Court is passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The preseut petition ffled uader Article 226 of fhe Constitutiou. of India seeks a direction to the respondents. No. l to 4 to promote the petitioner above the respondents No. 10 and II. It is admitted by leamed counael appearing for both fhe parties that the Bank lias foUowed the giiidelines framed by the Respondents No. 1 to 4 under the un-atuended Rules as per fhe Circiilar dated lat December, 1987 {Aiuiexure-P/ 6). Leamed coiinsel appearing for atl fhe partics agree fhat the issiie uivolved ia ttie picsent case is squai^ly covered by fhe decision of the Suprenie Court iii the case of Hargoviad Yadav Vs. Rewa Sidhi Garamin Baak and others (2006 AIR SCW 2822), whei^m fhe Supreme Court held as under:- 21. The next question fhat arises for consideration is ftie reUefto be granted. The appellaat was firet considered for proiaotion during 1991 aad was not promoted, by wrongly adopting fhe principle of merit-cuia-seniority. The said procedure was fouad to be erroneous by fhe single Judge, Division Bench and by this 9. :a!S181| Court. The Baxik was directed to consider the case of AppeUaat for promotion on fhe basis of seniority-cuin-merit. Thereafter, iu fhe cqntempt proceediiigs irutiated by fhe appeUant, the Bank undertook to comply wifh fhe order directing consideration of fhe appeUant's case by fhe procedure of seniorily-cum-merit. But the Bauk, again by adoptiag the inerit-cuin-seiuority method, failed to promote fhe appcUant and promoted fhird respondent. The procedure adopted by the Bank had been foiind to be faulty on three occasions by fhis Court and the High Court, one of which was iu the case of AppeUant himself. The appellaut had been denied promotion for morc than 16 years by repeatedly adoptmg such an erroneous procedure. In the circuiastaaces, we do not fhink it necessaiy to drive fhe appeUaat once agaio. to face fhe process of selection for promotion. This Court ui CoinptroUer aad Auditor General of India v. K. S.-Jagannathan {1986 (2) SCC 679} observed fhiis: There is fhus no doubt that the High Courts iu India exercisiag their jiu-isdiction under Article 226 have fhe power to issue a writ of mandanaus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and given necessaiy directions where the Goveruinent or a public aufhorily has failed to exercise or has wrongfy exercised fhe discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a i-ule or a policy-decision offhe Goverument or has exereised such discretion mala fide or on in-elevaat considerations or by ignoring fhe relevaat consideratious and materials or in such a laanner as to fl-ustrate the object ofconferring such discretion or fhe poUcy for iiapleinenting wliich such discretion has , been conferred. In aU such cases and in aay other fit and proper case a High Court cau, in the exercise of its jurisdiction uader Article 226, issue a writ of inandamus or a writ in fhe nature of niandamus or pass orders and given directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawful marmer of fhe discretiou 'conferred upon the govenunent or a pubUc aufhority, and ia a proper case, iu order to prevent iajustice resulting to fhe concemed parties, the court niay itself pass an order or give directions which the govemment or the public aufhority should have passed or given had it properiy and lawfuUy exercised its discretion. 3. Having regard to the factual background of the case, and having regard to the fact fhat even under the merit-cum-seniority basis adopted by the bank fhe appeUaat had secured high niarks and he was denied proinotion on. the gnound fhat he failed to secure inuuDium inarks in fhe interview, there is no aeed to refer the inatter for fresh consideration. Wifh a view to do complete justice, in exeiicise of our power under Article 142 we hereby direct the first respondent baak to proiaote fhe appeUant as a Field Supervisor, froiu the date fhe third defendaat was proinoted as Field Supervisor aad place him above the fhird Respondent. However, he will be entitled to monetaiy benefits flowiag iroin such promotion only prospectively, though the pay is to be refixed wifh reference to the retrospective date of promotion." Accordingly, this petition is aUowed wifh a direction to fhe lespondents No. l to 4. to proinote the petitioner in accordaace with the directions given by fhe Supreiue Court ia the case of Hargovind Yadav (Supra). No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge IS^ffSS'SSSK^