~9£0m 3...! Suv:amaatans. .93areas". 23a“. £593. xsm samuraisucug 8.832 Bea. 252 AQuu :kmaatEEE “£65. 43m .93”. 13.9". umaa gomEué sueaLm gsxw Ea. :rs M €9E§€ fuwaa §a§§m 43m .2233 wo28m m :ammjusé saga Eng5,55 gm 3.5a.899”.hmaa .8o v3; 5%;0 ma smasF iom W .93 agoaomgaaaa . m ssmwfuéu :Eaa .._.ui_.m_5 J, ; . :am .Acomranoav vaw :EEm “Em 3.3.Eo.oa 93. wEué :ueagm mag mwtsau3 _, .93. 35$. :ama 3g m f m : E 5 g g _m € Em 9 3 a Eamoa,a c8$ .M ‘ ¥ QUV r.~Ba +2.:h fem“ gag v2 .23..Egmou {om 393$ :Bog ESP g5. xaxm $3 ssaaasama 8&0 Eux 4a 3.3aEamon5&5 H38m §Eo _o§.m< .aEax xwnhu $3 .tumam samaa 8.5 v31 * .Ed36am”. saaa Hgsw §$o :m:_m?9€82 .58. A$8 nagab t_.§ 3:333“. 43m 5¢ .EQmoa :eumEm £9.9 ‘ xaz£23 , “.muv xammoa .ttE "sgsucum .3 .Eni _=3<3 amuv sbma amaz Evosaé tam 3.5a.893saaa gore p.93 .32;om c982 £38.: 3a samaa”EE. .Eé * 35a .Egmaa:ama .EmEQz :Eag >53, baa. Faz §ma 0 A 5 3 en m < a m ”. a 3 a . 5 3 g 5 5 a mx 3a 3m a a 5 6 m G 3 a m amuv 5&3 taEa aging 4m 3a Egw¢Fumad Euwi HH.u_uom w m .35.; 25. osu< , Aauv gae”.téua 3 sagatarma w w :Emaa no.t0vo£\. xcum 3.5a $.9mna sémad 842% HHI03m ea? Eva xvoa< 23396.34am 3.5a .Eoaoa sbmaa .Msmacgz :Eu& .Bgto HH.u_Sm W~w.=2 3 End .isuoh tEm5 .282 3m . £¢ : guu H.u_ .azg .nra.oigm 4&3 ixmub "ET—EB .iaa {cm .63.uaeEod sBmEd $3.32 seugm caEm 55.2w... éQUV 58mgubEEE .595... ism 33 .EQmou €53. .3952 589$ 5:36 ea §a €23 nQvv isuuh +0..»vm5 .amu .iah *3 33 3.99asawaa .wmucué:EEm .t;§ua ass. §S 3 b x m $ ~ u 2 4 33KEgg E¢3¢ kaucgz uagm .mg Huum q z s N as m3EnsuobtE < V aeEmcm «tom ‘ m M 3.5a .ucQmua x8maa _ ‘ V‘ 77 .amaaéguagm guut6 HHéoum . 5&3€093, tans. , __ xEmad H _ izoxv .33. «mam .93a 3.0.mad :Bmad wasgz ism kgto Hun—com $.522&932 chow $§ SEE taren M _.m:0l. xcum ES.egfm Esw 36Vkgmoh .5535 amvv imam .tzEo ”55:3 v1.8 _ 35aEgmna£893. ‘ 595i sEugm , kgto HH.u.3m asumEusuaooa $8 sbmaa taEa ;§§m xcom .ohE .acgmoa fumaa .3955 suagm , swuio HHéaum .ga.a< Ea. ,Eg .mN Ea m Prasgd Bhghel. Seats—II when Branch Mnmger. Raiarh Ragioml ank Lue, Dis—Mat Jx hha‘Hisgw. m ; ‘ g Rum! B, dg ' Ch hpm @> HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition N0. 21.99 of 2004 Sd/— satish K. Agnihou-i a > Judge Petitioner N. P. Sahu Versus Responc1ents Raigarh Regional. Rural Bank and others V r; Post for order 0n. j Septfimber, 2066‘ a :w-wy @) /._ HIGH COURT OF CHHA’IVWSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition N9. 2199 of 2004 Single Bench : Hon’blé Mr. Jusiicc gatish K. Agnihotxi, §h1i Sanjay K. Agalwal, Advocate for m6 petitioner. Shn' P. RV Patankar] Advocate for the respomlents No. 1 and 2. Shn' P. S. Koshy; Advocate for the. respondents No. 4, 5, 7, 11 to 15 and 1117 to 26. ORDER ( I 3k SEptember, 2006) The foHowing ordsr‘of the Court is paSsod by Satish K. Agihotri, J. In the present petition, tho petitioner has sought for a writ of certion'ari, seeking quashing of the promotion of the respondents No. 3 to 2o to the post of OEcer Grade-H by order dated 1 1th March, 2004 (Annexure P/S), following the principles of seniority-cum-merit. The v petitioner has further sought a writ for quashing the memo dated V 24, 12.2003 (Anneialre P/ 5) with consequential relief. For the reasons stated in the order dated. 1.9.2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2200 of 2004 (Tapas Kumar Roy VS. Raigarh Regional Rura1 Bank and others), this petition is allowed. No order as to costs. A copy of the order dated 1.9.2006 passed in .P.No. 2200/2004 be placed on record. WV V YYY‘-"i_.Y?y?l Petitionm‘ N. P. Sahu Varsus R€spondenfs Raigarh Regional Rural Rank and others; HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I’I‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR Wn‘t Petition No. 2200 of 2004 Tapas Kumar Roy Petitioner Versus Respondents Raigarh Rcgiona] Rural Bank and others Post for on'ier on I J Eeptember, 2006. Sd/- ’ Sa$h K. Agnihom ‘ Judge i i ‘ HIGH COURT OF‘ CHHA’I‘TISGARH AT BILASPURX Writ Petition No. 2200 of 2004 Petitioner Tapas Kumar Roy Versus Respondents Raigarh Regional Rural Bank and others . single Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Jusu'ce Salish K. Apihotri. ay K. Agaxwal, Advocate for the petm'oner. Shn' P. R. Patankar, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2. ‘ ‘ ‘ Shri P. S. Koshy, Advocate for the respondents No. 3 to 20. ,. ORDER ( I‘ Septemhcr, 2005) The following order of the Court is passed by satish K. Agnihotti, J. 1. In the pmsent petition, the petitioner has sought for a wn't of certiorari, seeking quashing of the promotion of the respondents No. 3 to 20 to the post of O$cer Grade-II by order dated 11th March, 2004 (Annexure P/8), following the principles of seniority~cum-merit. The petitioners have hirther sought a writ for quashing the memo dated 1 24. l 2.2003 (Annexuie P/ 5) With consequential relief 2 The undisputed facts in nutshell are that the respondent-Bank is a Regional Rural Bank, sponsored by the State Bank of India. The Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act, 1976’) gives power by virtue of Section 29 of the Act, 1976 to the Central Government to > make rules. Section 29 (a) provides that the Central Government may after consultation with the National Ranks and Sponsor Banks by notifxcation in the odicial gazette make rules for carrying out the provisions of this Act. Sub-section (2) (b) of the Act of 1976 also confers power on the/Central Government to frame rules regarding the j 6% manner in which the Offlcers and other employees of the Regional Rural Banks shall ‘be appointed. Sedjon 30 of the Act of 1976 contemplates about power to make regulations. Sub-section (1) of Se'ction 30 provides that Bomd of Directms of the Regional Rural Bank may, after consultation with the Sponsor Bank and National Bank and with the pmvious sanction of the Central Government, by notification in the officia] gazette’omake regulation, not inconsistent with the. provisions of this Act and Rules made there-under to pmvide for all matters for which the provision is necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving etl'ect to the provisions of the Act. of 1976. Sub— section (2) of Section 3O of‘the Act of 1976 also provides that every mgulation shall as soon as may be after it is made under the Act by the Board of Dimctors be forwarded to the Central Government and the Government shall cause a copy of the same to be laid before each House of the Parliament, while it is in session for a. total period of thirty days which may be Comprised in one session or two 01' mom SUCCESSIVC SeSSlODS. The Central Government vide notihcation dated 29m July, 1998 framed the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Ofticets and other employees) Rules, 1998 (for short ‘the Rules 1998’) which came intoforce w.e.f. the date of the’publication in the official gazette i.e. 27.9. 1998. As per the Rules, 1998 the vacancies of otiicers and other employees are to be hlled up by each Regional Rural Bank, in accordance with these rules and subject to such guidelines as may be issued by the Central Government, from time to time. Third Schedule under Rule 6 provides for promotion from Scale I Officer to Scale It Officer on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, which is reproduced herein below:- r"3% w??? “(a) Name of the p931; . Scale II Officer ‘ (b) Classification Gmup “A” (¢)Soume of appointment 100%) by pmmotion. (d) Whefher promotions Pmmotions shall be made on the basis of soniority- to be made on écniority cum-merit. basis or scnion'ty-cum- ‘ melit basis : ; ‘ (e) Eligibility Oiiicexs holding post for eight yeaxs as an omcer on i i regular basis in the Regional Rural Bank shall be considered promotion in scale II post in that Bank. Ptovided that no omcer shall be consideted for promotion unless he has been confirmed in the feeder grade post. Provided further that the board may, with the prior approval of National Bank, relax the qualifying service for a period not exceeding two years, if eligible omcers are not available. Note : (l) The officers eligible for promotion to the post of Area Managers] Senior Managers/o$¢rs scale ll on. or before the publication of this notification shall continue to be considered for promotion to Scale ll officer post. (ll) The service of the incumbents, Who are holding the post eligible for promotion before publication of this notification, shall continue for the purpose of promotion to Scale ll otficer post. r (t) Mode of selection The committee selection on of the candidates basis shall of. written be made test by and the interview and assessment of the Performance Appraisal Report for the preceding five years as an I officer in scale-l field supervisor. (g)Composition The COmmittee (for considering promotion) shall of Committee r consist of the following persons, namely:— (i) The Chairman of the concerned Regional Rural Bank Chairman. (ii) A Director nominated by the sponsor bank:— Member. (iii) A Director nominated by National bank — Member. '- l ’ Note z lf none of the members of the Committee belongs to Scheduled Castes] Scheduled Tribes the Board may nominate a person belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes as an additional member and such kA/ pcwons shall participate in the pmcess of selection by the concerned Committee. (h) Reckoning of the The minimum eligibility in terms of the member of minimum eligbih'ty years of sewice for pmmotion shall be mckoned as on the 1“ April of the year on which the vacancy is expected to arise or has actually arisen. (i) Number of candidates The number of candidates to be considered for to be considered for pmmotiqn fmm officer scale I to odicer scale II shall be restn'cted to four times the number of vacancies pmmoh‘on available for promotion. ‘ ' (i) Selection Process for The selection shall be on the basis of Performance promotion. in the written test, interview and Performance Appraisal Reports for pieceding five years as per the division of marks given below: : 60 marks : 20 marks (C) Performance Appraisal : 20 marks (A) Written test (B) Interview Reports Total marks : 100 marks (A) Written test The Candidates shall be required to appear for (60 marks) written test comprising of two parts (A) covering Banking Law and Practice of Banking and Part (B) covering Credit Policy, Credit Management including Priority Sector, Economics and Management. : 6O marks allotted to written test shall be further divided as under: :Part “A” 3O marks :Part “B” 30 marks : A list of only those candidates who secure a minimum. on 40°/o marks in each part shall be prepared and such candidates shall be called for interview. (B) Interview (20 marks) z There shall be no minimum Qualifying marks for the interview. (C) Performanceappraisal : Performance Appraisal Reports for the preceding reports (2O marks) five years shall be consrdered for the purpose of awardmg marks for promotion The benchmark for qualifying the written test was securing minimum 40% marks in (fach' part and no minimum qualifying marks was pmvided for interyiew. By circular dated 24.12.2003 (Annexure P/5), the same selecu’on process as prescribed in thc Rules, 1998 was accepted by the Boatd of Dimctors to appoint 27 vacant posts of Scale-II OElcers. This circular is impugned in this petition. Shri Sanjay K. Aganval, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the selection process as prescribed in the Rules and also in the impugned circular are had. as no minimum qualifying marks for the inteiview is pmvided. The basis of promotion i.e. seniority-cum-merit has been seniority-cum-written test as 2O marks allotted for interview and performance appraisal has not been taken into consideration for fixing the qualifying marks. 7. Shn' P. R. Patankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the contrary, submitted that not prescribing minimum qualifying marks for the interview does not vitiate the selection, as candidates, who had seemed the minimum 400A: marks in the written test alone were qualitied to appear in the interview and their appraisal reports are considered. Learned counsel. further submitted that having appeared in the examination, the petitioners are estopped from challenging the selection process. Shri P. S. Koshy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 3 1&0 20 while adopting the submission of the respondent~Bank further contended that the point of law and facts involved in the present case are squarely covered by the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Hargovind Yadav Vs. RmSidhi Gramin Bank as 0:5.1 and B V Sivaiah and thers Vs. K Addanki Balm and others? o 9. I have heani learned. counsel for th€ parties and perused the pleas an th documents annexe to the petition a also the return. 1. The facts, as stat above by the petitners, e admitted by e 0 parties. The question for consideration i t petion is tha as to whether under seniority-cum-merit 'cn'teria or promotion, piescription of nimum qualifying marks in interview is the mi necesaty requiren, when the mim qualifying marks have bee piescn'bed in the Writtn test and ther the same s against the dicta laid w by the Supreme Court the above stad ces. The Suprem Court has consideied the mode of selectio of various e n Banks in the ease of B. V. Sivaiah and others(Sup1a). In the matter of Rayalaseema Grameena Ba, wherein the selection was made by Circular dated 27.9.1989, setting apt 34 marks for seniority, 10 marks for quifcion, mks for inter and 56 arks for performance, out of total nuber of 120 mars, the minmum m k i number of marks tt coul be award for seniority was 34 d 0.75 ark for each compted month of service ver an above the imu quifying service, it w the ce Where only six odicers minm al as as a secure the highest mber of marks were ultimaely omoted nd it was not case th mimum qlifyi marks were prescribed for merit and thus ho seced the minim qualifying rks were prooted on. the bas of seniority, it was ld that the mode of selection was contrary o the principle of seniority-cum-mit. n the matter of Pinakini Grameena Bank, the section was made of o th c f nly ose oiiiers, who secured the highest number o marks mongst the eligible dicers and it was held that the method of selection w contrary to the principle of seniority-cum—merit. #1 ding d ti d nd to ed io ar th n his it t f s met nimu a " n e Whe i don in te as nk ar aliat 2O ar view m ha d de an m le o d hd d nu t pr a the at in uang w ur um ma m is he t er I le a o as 12. I‘n the case of ‘B. V. Sivaiah and other$(Supra) the Supreme Court V has considered the Second Schedule: to the Regiona1 Rural Banks l V, ‘ (Appointment ahd Pmlhoh'on of Oiiicers and Other Employees) Rules, ‘ 1988, which provides the promotion criteria. The criteria of promotion on the basis of‘seniority-cum-merit on the post of Area Manager-cum- Senior Managef. In that case the Supreme Court in pam 18 obselved, :i . 3 é as under.- ‘ ( ‘ ‘ “18. We thus arrive at the mnclusion thaj 1kg aiten'on of " ‘senioritgralm-merii’ in the matter of promotion postulates that given the minimum necessary meritrequisitefor efn'a'ency z; - of administration, the senior, even though Iess meritorious, shall have pn‘on'ty and a comparative assessment of merit is not required to be inade‘ For assessing the minimum necessary merit, the competent authority can lay down the minimum standard that is required and also prescribe the 1 i made of assessment of merit of the employee who is eligible ‘ i for consideration for promotion Such assessment mn be made by assigning marks on the basis of appraisal of performance on the basis of service record and interview and prescribing the mim'rmm marks which would entitle a person \ to be promoted on the basis ofSem'ority—mm-merit. ’ 13.1 in the matter of Hargovind Yadav(Supra) the Supreme Court in i paragraphs 17 and 18 held as under:— ‘ V ‘ 1 7. Interviews can be held and assessment ofperformarwe V. can be made by the Bank in connection with promotions. But 5.. that can be only to assess the minimum necessary merit. But where the procedure adopted, does not provide the minimum- .g j standard for promotion, but only the'mim'rrmm standard for interview and does the selection with reference to comparative i , marks, it is contrary to the i Rule of ‘senioritybwm- “18,1.......... .......As we have already noticed, in this case, the procedure is not one of ascertaining the minimum necessary merit and then promoting the candidates with the minimum . . . ‘ 2W ’8/ 7/ merit in awardarwe with seniority, but assessing the oomparaiéiue merit by drawing up a merit list, the assessment being with reference to marks sewred for seniority, pe orm¢m1w, postings at mml/dw‘iwlt plaoes and interview. The fact that the appellam had failed to secure the minimum marks in interview,‘ is not relevaju as the entire pmcedure adopted by the Bank (of which interview is a part) is found to be vitiated and not in consonmwe with the principle bf seniority-cum—merit. " In the present case the minimum quaHfying marks Wem prescribed for assessment of men't in written test. Thereafter, the marks awalded in intexview and performance appraisal did not provide for any minimum qualifying marks that in fact provides for comparative assessment of the candidates, who had obtained minimum quali§Iing marks in. the written test. Out of total 100 marks, 60 marks were set apart for written test, 2O marks for interview and. 20 marks for performance appraisal report and the minimum qualifying marks does not include the marks obtained in interview as Well as the performance appraisal reports. In the [facts of the case and in View of the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases cited. above, the interview and the appraisal performance did not provide for minimum qualifying marks and it was comparative assessment on merit. Thus, the mode of selection prescribed was not on the basis of principle of seniority- cum-merit but on merit-cum seniority. Thus, the entire selection process is vin'ated, not being in consonance with the principle of _ seniority-cum-merit. 6. With regard to the next contention thatithe petitioners he estopped from raising the question of selection process, after having appeared and. failed in the selection. ln the facts of the case, when the criteria of romotion was seniority-cum-mer-it and the respondents No. 1 and 2, 1 p ./\‘ 2?; ?9” in fact have followed the critcria of merit-cum-seniority, having more- emphasis on merit than seniority, after having exaniined the suitability ofthe candidates on the basis of minimuni qualifying test, the pmmotioo ought to have been. made on the basis of seniority. The petitioner catinot be held as debarred horn questioning the basis of selection criteria. As a result and for the reasons stated-ahove, and the circular dated 24.12.2003 and. the impugned selection pmcess consequent thereupon. stand quashed, being contrary to the principle ofseniority-cum-mer'it. No order as to costs. l7. this petition is allowed (2006 AIR scw 28221) {(1998) 6 sec 7202} mwJ Sdl- Sau'sh K. AgnihO‘Ti Judge W