B IS THE BIGB CBOHT : @F NAWYA /PBABESfi P,NB<3198/1993.. F. /^. f^, fl-''_S'~_MJiJS-i- ^^E^^"^^^ 1 s* Ps-titioneis- Iff -rr-., \. . ^^- ^' <-\ ^' fl ty i -61 d l^^-wfr*>N"K'^'*' ^^. -fl •^h^''.'S^' .,..f^*n>*a- R,§,Slaarma, ag'ed' ahiout _42 years S/B Slari (tandban Shaiaa, aged about 42 years, Internal Atadi'fcor^ (OJN), fiaigarb Kshetriya Sraaiia Ban fe, t-1d,, E»f:f* Saigarh BBelkaBth Htaktisrj.i* aged aboiit ' years s/o tb e.la te\Sh ri.nathRukh' Bran ch Waga ger, Saigarh Kshs tr^ Gran.i.B Bank,' Branch-JangaoR, \ Bis-tl;^ fiaigaih*' • Pradeep KtjRar Pare, aged about'39^ years s/@ Shri. Laxai Shsnfeer Pars, Officer (8JT), Baigarb Kstietriya firanin Bank,. Nsad B'ffice-Aaigarh* AshwiBi K-tirear Kashiv a/o ShyanStlBeie^l Kastiiv, ageEl 32 years^ Officer, Baigath Kshe •fcriya Gramin Bawk, He'ad Sffxce-fiaigarh^ ' i^ / v Sharad VerBa, Branch Naiiager, fiaj.gart) Ksbetiiya, Brato.tn Bank, Barankela, Teh»SaraBg5arh, BAS'k.ript-BaigaTh* • . •• ).». •^..t^- as0 —Wsrs'us— Responderats- 2» 3« 4. s» 6> fiaigarb Ksftetriya SraDih Bank •throu.gSS its Ehairaan StiTi. K,»V,Subl3aSa:b.i ,: j|!. Saigsrh Ksbe-tBiya firaaiR. Bank,Nsaei -'{ flffice-St^tion' Rgact, Raigarh,(H^ -* '^ Shri Paratblal HesliBan, Si»Hahager(Adv8catB), Sbxi PBadse.p Kiaaar MishTa.AreaHanagi 5hri Bhan^shwar Sai.SriiHariager (?ccbunts), Shri Shatrughanlal Sharna.sABeaHanags^j Anjaoi Kumar Tiwari.Sr..8anager: , • :||| (Eeneral Banki.ng), . ' (flBSpaiidents Ne» 2 •bo 6 ars pos-teel In the tieae! Bffice of the Saigarh Kshs-triya Srami.n. .Bank , S't a-fc .i.gn Scia d',.Saigarh ) «: ~ . ^ ( -2. :,'9 MU..S PetitiaEi Under Ar-tictes 226_&_22J_Bf_Tha;g Eon stj-tution;' af.! In di.a ; Ira ^The 'Ba-ture Bf^j^SSS Breaeh 0f_,!:)olicy^ In Reaar^ To .P..romo'tx:ons8B3 Fxom OJH To Senior Area HanaqBa;jby Th'e Resoonden-t iMo.1. ., ' Ra '••i HIGH COURT OF CHJLAmSGARHAT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 3198 of 1993 Petitioners R. S. Shanna and others Versus Respoadents Raigarh Kshetriya Gramin Bank and others Slngle Bench : Hon'bk Mr. Justice Satish K. Agaihotri. Shri Saajay K. Agarwal, Advocate with SIui Jndrasen Sahu, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri P. R. Pataafcar, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri P. S. Koshy, Advocate for fhe respoudents No. 2, 3, 4 and 6. ORAL ORDER (17tb Juty, 2006) The fonowing order ofthe Court is passed by Satish K. AgnUiotri, J. 1. The present petition ffled under Article 226 of fhe Constitution of Inda seeks a direction to, the respondent No. 1 to piomote fhe petitioners above the respondents No. 2 to 6. It is admitted by leamed counsel appearing for aU the pariies fhat the Bank has not foUowed the principles ofpromotion as laid down by the Supreme Court. 2. Leanied counsel appearing for aU fhe parties agree fhat the issue involved in the picsent case is squarely covered by fhe decision of tfae Suprenie Court ia fhe case of Hargovind Yadav Vs. Rewa SIdhi . Gramin Bank and others (2006 AIR SCW 2822), wherein the Supreme Court held as under:- B3J. The uext question. ttiat arises for consideration is the reliefto • be grauted. The appeUant was first considered for proniotion . r f duriug 199.1 and was not proiaoted, by wrongly adopting fhe -t- 7ri B'y principle of m.erit-cum-seiuorily. The said procedure was found to be enroneous by fhe single Judge, Division Bench and by this Court. The Baak was directed to consider the case of Appellant for promotion on the basu of seniorily-ciun-iaerit. Thereaflfcer, in the contempt prcx-eedings iiutiatcd by the appeBant, fhe Bank undertook to coinply with fhe order directiug consideration of the appeUaat's case by the procedure of seiuorily-cum-merit. But the Bank, agaia by adopting the merit-cuiu-seniorily method, failed to proinote the appeUant and proinoted third respoudent. The procedi.ire adopted by the Baak had been found to be faulty on three occasions by this Court and the High Court, one ofwhich was in the case of AppeUant himself. The appellant had been denied proniotifln £>Fniore than 16 years by repeatedly adopting such an erroneous procedure. In the circunistances, we do not thiak it necessary to drive the appeUant oncc again to face the process of selection for proinotion. Tbis Court in ComptroUer and Auditor General of India v. K. S. Jagannathaa {1986 (2) SCC 679} observed thus; There is thus no doubt fhat fhe High Courts in India exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 have the power to issue a writ of maadamus or a writ in the nature of mandam.us or to pass orders and given necessaiy directions wheie the Govenmieiit or a public aufhority has fafled to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion confen'ed upon itby a statute or a rule or a policy-decision offhe Govenunent or has exercised sueh discretion mala fide or ou irrelevant considerations or by ignoriug fhe relevant consideradons and inaterials or ia such a manner as to finsteate the object ofconferriag such discretion or the poUcy for implenieating which such discretion has been coiiferred. In aB such cases and in any other fit and proper case a High Court can., in fhe exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, issue a writ of mandamus or a writ iu fhe nature of maadamus or pass orders and giveu directions to coinpel ffae performance ia a proper and lawfiil maarier of the discretion conferred upon fhc govcrument or a pubUc aufhority, aad in a proper case, in order to prevent .uyustice resulting to fhe concemed parties, the court may itself pass aa ordcr or give directions which the goverament or the t- sK.s'ssh:Ki_.au ic»a^E^ T.S'is^ur 3. public aufhori.ly should have passed or given had it properly aad lawfiilty exercised ita discreti.on.'' Haviag regard to the factual background of fhe case, and having regard to fhe fact that even under fhe ment-cum-seniority basis adopted by fhe bank fhe appeUant had secured high marks and he was denied proinotion on fhe ground that he failed to secure minunuin marks in the iatemew, fhere is no need to refer fhe matter for fi-esh cousideration. Wifh a viewr to do coinplete justi.ee, ai exercise of our power under Article 142 we hereby direct the first respondent bank to promote the appeHant as a Field Supervisor, Iroin the date the thud defendant was proinoted as Pield Supenrisor and place him above the third Respondent. However, he wffl be entMed to monetary benefits flowing froin sueh proiaotion only prospectively, fhough fhe pay is to be refixed Wifh reference to the retrospecfcive date of proinotion." Accordingly, this petition is aUowed with a direction. to the respondeut No. 1 to promote the petitioneyin accordanee with the directions given by fhe Supreme Court ia the case of Hargovind Yadav (Supra}. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agsiiihotri Judge ^