mFORE Tm JUDICAWURE OF MADnYA PRADFSH 1mm COURT T A J A B A L P U R - ‘I i WJ? W0. l __/97. g gRIT: UNDER_ARTIC;LE 226 CONggLTumogLgggmnm IN TIE f? : ggTTER‘OF PRgOTmN. ' P ETI TIONER : -' NAND KISHORE SHRIVASTAVA. S/o SHRI 3HEELVRAT SHRIVASTAVA. AGED. 903mm ABOUT. AND’WORKxNG As OFFICER-I, DURG+RAJNANDGAON GRAMIN .BANK. HEAR QUARTER M P HOUSING BOARD, SHOPPING OOMPLEy, G. E. ROAD, RAJNANDGAON. (M P.) . ygRiUS PONDnNTs- (1) DURG RaJNANDGAON ORAMm BANK, THROUGH: Ts caAIRMaN HEAR OFE‘IeE G.E.ROAD. , M.P.HOUSING BOARD cowwxw gAJNANDGAQg, DiggRAJNAQGAON (wh491441‘ (2) BOAmS 0F. DIRECTRORS. DURG RAJNANDGAON GRAMIN BANKr'“ ' M.P.H0UsxNG AT ms HEAR OFFICE BOARD SHOPPING G.E.ROAD, GOMPLEX. i ' . - , ‘ RAJNANDGAON DISTRICT RAJNARDGAON. . THROUGH ITS CRAxRMAN. . ‘ (3) GHRI R.K.NEELAY S/O NOT KNOWN, ' r AwLD ABOUT-39 EEARDI SENIOR L-izmAGER, POSTED AT RRAROH DRORI, DURGRAJNMDGAON GRaMxN BANK. ' (4) SHRI A.K.DUBEY s/O NOT KN NN. AGED ABOOT-as YEARS, ‘_ .l I SENIOR MANAGER; DURG RAJNANDGAON GRAMIN ’BgzxNm gRANCH KURQDL£OST ‘KURU‘ DTTDURG RES DLwLR IS. :z 2:: (5) SHRI A.C.VERMA S/O NOT KNOWN’ SENIO R AREA MANAGER, POSTED AS SENIOR MANAGER, AUDIT AND INSPECTION: ‘DU RG RAJNANDGAON GRAMIN BANK: _ HEAE OFFICE RAJNANDGAON; G. E. ROAD: U S NG L EI M g P .1 HO I BOARD SHOPPI NG EOMP X ‘ RAJ‘NANGON DI 533T. RAJNANDGAON. ( 6) SHRI R.K.KUREJAE¢T K sENIOR MANAGER ACCOUNrrs) ( , HEAD OFFCE DURG RAJNANAON RAMIN BANK, RAJNANAON G E. ROADIM . P o HOUSING BOARD SHOPPING COMPLEX.NI (M.P.) . (7) SHRx SANJAY A'DAM. K SENIOR MER ANAG (PSQ) ERNAL HEAD OFFICE, DU AJNAMJGAON MI 13m RG R GRAN m RAJNANDG ' NNON P . mun WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 2 26 CT'' ONSITUTION OF INDIA I DA, x DG G DG; . gAJNDAGAg§_ Aog, DI STE . RAJADGA (M . ‘ ) ’'‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHAIIISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1371 nf 1907 Petitioner Nand Kishore Shrivastava Versus Respondents Drg Rajnandgaml Grdmin Bank and others Single Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri‘ Shri Yashwant ’I‘iwari, Advocate with Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate for ttm petitioner. Shri P, S. Koshy, Advocate for fhe respondents. ORAL ORDER (17m July, 2006) The following order of the Ccurt is passed by Satish K. mihotri, J. u I ,p V 1. The present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a direction to the respondents No‘ 1 and 2 to‘promote the petitioner above the respondents No. 3 to 7. It is admitted by learned counsel appearing for both the parties that the Bank has followed the guidelines framed by the Respondents No. 1 and 2 under the un- ,/> /i amended Rules as per the Circular dated lat December, 1987 Q; l (Annexure-P/ 6), i2. Learned counsel appearing for all the parties agree that the issue involved is involved in the present case squarely covered by the decision of the Supieme Court in the case of Hargovind Yadav Vs. Rewa Sidhi Gtamin Bank and others (2006 AIR SCW 2822), wheiein the Supreme Court held as under:- “21. The next question that arises for consideration is the relief to he 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 ermneous by the single Judge, Division Bench and by this Court. The Bank was directed to consider the case of Appellant for S? promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. Thereafter, in the contsmpt proceedings initiated by the appellant, the Bank undertook to comply with the order directing consideration of the appellant’s case by the proceduxe of seniority—enm-merit. But the Bank, again by adopting the merit-cum-seniority method, failed to promote the appenant and promoted third respondent. The procedure adopted by the Bank had been found to be faulty on ‘ three occasions by this Court and the High Court, one of which was in 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 process of selection for promotion. This Court in Comptroller and Auditor General of India v. K. S. Jagannathan {1986 (2) SCC 6’79} observed thus: “There is thus no doubt that the High Courts in India exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 have the power to 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 tide 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 tit 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 the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the government or a public authority, 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 \ 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 intexview, there is no need to refer the matter for hesh consideration. With a View to do complete justice, in exercise of our power under Article 142 we hereby diiect the first Iespondent 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 reflxed with reference to the retrospective date of promotion.” 3. Accordingly, this peh‘tion 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 x Vi, ,