‘Lmal KANT sAHU 3&0 SHax KODURAM SAHU AGEB ABOUT ho YEARs BRANCH MANAGER (om— )awmw mm mmmmu GRAIMABANK BRANCH HasADA, Poswwms‘am (2) TAH. BERALA msTRICT 111m (M.P.)- 490036 VER$U$ ‘ THWUGH - 7T3 CfiAIRMN‘J WAD OFFICE, .EamAD McPo mUSING EARD SHOPPING wMPLEX RAJNmwmN. DISTT. RAJNANWAON (BLP )- 491 Mr! WARD OF DIREGTORS mrgwRaJnandgann Gramin Bank at its Kead Office G.E.Road. ‘M.E’.Housing &ard shopping complex Rajnandgaon District Rajnanégaon Thruugh - its Chairman. SHRI R.K.’ NmAY SIG NOT KNOW aged about 59"Yearsh. I Senior Manager, Posted' at Branch Deori. urg Rajuandgao‘n Gramin Bank. SHRI A.K. ‘DUBEY slo HOT mom aged abont '587years. senior Manager, mrg q Raxa‘ldgaon Gramin Bank, Branch Kurud, Post Kurud, Taghsil‘ & District- Burg. (3) WRT UNDER ARTICLE 225 mNSTITUTION OF mDIA ET THE MATTER OF PROMOTION. PETITIDNER‘ Rgwwnwws: ' (1) was wmmwm ‘Gmm 3mm B I Shri Au}. Verna S/a Not Know Senior Area Manager posted as Senior Manager Audit and Inspection, mrg Bajnandgaon Gramin Rank, Head Office Raanandgaon‘ G.E.mad, M.P. Housing Board Shopping Complex, Radnandgagn District Rajaandgaon. 3hr1 R.K. Kukreja Senior Manager (Accounts) Head Office, Burg - Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank, Ra31andgaon (LE. Road, M.Pc Housing Board Shopping Complex; Ra3nandgaon (MP) (5) (6) (7) Shri Sanjay Kadam ' Senior Manager (Pereonnel) Head Office,- mrg - Rajnandgaon 'Gramin Bank, Rajnandgaon, District Raanandgaon (M.P.) M ~" . W WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 226 wNSTITUTION OF mDI HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I'I‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR Wn't Petition No. 1233 0f 1997 Petitioner Laxmi Kant Sahu Versus Respondents Durg Rajnandgaon Gramm Bank and others Single Bench : Hon’blc Mr. Justics Satish K. Ayihotri. Shri Yashwant Tiwari, Advocate with Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate for ths petitioner. Shri P. S. Kashy, Advacate for the msponcknts. ORAL ORDER (17th July, 2006) The following order of the Court is passed by Satish K.~Agnihotri, J. 1. The pmsent petition med under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a direction to the respondents No. 1 ami 2 to promote the petitioner above the reshondents No. 3 to 7. It is admitted by learned counsel appearing for both the parties that the Bank has followed the guidelines darned by the Respondenté No. 1 and 2 under the un- amended Rules as per the Circular dated 15‘ December, 1987 (AnnexureuP/ 6). og Learned counsel appearing for all the parties agree that the issue involved 111 the present case 1s squarely covered by the dec151on of the Supreme Court 1n the case of Hargovind Yadav Vs. Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank and others (2006 AIR SCW 2822), wherein the Supreme Court held asunder:- “21. The next question that arises for consideration is the relief to be granted. The appellant was first considered for promotion during 1991 and was not promoted, by wrongly adopting the principle of merit-cum-seniority. The said procedure was found to be erroneous by the single Judge, Division Bench and by this Court. The Bank was directed to consider the case of Appellant for 5y promotion on he basis of seniority-cum-merit. Thereafter, in the contempt proceedings initiated by the, appellant, the Bank 1 undertook to comply with the order directing consideration of the appellant’s case by the procedure of seniority-cum-melit. But the Bank, again by adopting the merit-cmn-seniority method, failed to promote the appellant and promoted third respondent The procedute adopted by the Rank had been found to be faulty on thlee occasmns by thls Court and the High Court one of whlch was m the case of Appellant himself. The appellant had been denied promotion for more than 16 years by repeatedly adopting such an erroneous procedure. In the circumstances, we do not think it necessary to drive the appellant once again to face the pmcess of selection for promotion. This Court in Comptroller and Auditor General of India v. K. S. Jagannathan {1986 (2) SCC 679} observed thus: “There is thus no doubt that the High Courts in India exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 have the power to i issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and given necessary directions Where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy-decision of the Government or has exercised such ' discretion mala nde or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as .to frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing which such discretion has been conferred. In all such cases and in any other ht and proper case a High Court can, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or pass orders and given directions to compel theperformance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the government or Va public authoritya and in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned parties, the court may itself pass an order or give directions which the government or the public authority should have passed or given had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion.” Having regard to the factual background of the case, and having regard to the fact that even under the merit-cum-seniority basis t adopted by the bank the appellant’had secured high marks and he was denied promotion on the ground that he failed to secure minimum marks in the interview, there is no need to refer the matter for flesh consideration. With a view to do complete justice, in exercise of our power under Article 142 we hereby direct the hrst respondent bank to promote the appellant as a Field Supervisor, from the date the third defendant was promoted as Field Supervisor and place him above the third Respondent. However, he will be entitled to monetary benefits flowing from such promotion only prospectively, though the pay is to be rehxed with reference to the retrospective date of promotion.” Accordingly, this petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents No. 1 and 2 to promote the petitioner in accordance with the directions given by the Supreme Court in the case of Hargovind Yadav (Supra). No order as to costs. Sd/- SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI Judge