Rupa Rani Rakshit & Ors vs Jharkhand Gramin Bank & Ors

- now known as Jharkhand Gramin Bank. The appellants were working as clerks-cum-cashiers or equivalent posts in different branches of the first respondent-Bank. The Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1988 (for short `the Rules') made by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred under the Provincial Rural Banks Act, 2 1976 governed the appointment and promotion of employees of the Bank. Rule 5 provided that all vacancies shall be filled in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Rules. Entry (5) of Second Schedule to the Rules related to filling of posts of Field Supervisors (subsequently merged with the post of officers). Clause (a) thereof provided that 50% of the posts shall be filled by promotion from amongst the confirmed senior and junior clerks-cum-cashiers or clerks-cum-typists or stenographers or steno-typists on the basis of seniority-cum-merit (the remaining 50% to be filled by direct recruitment which is not relevant for these appeals). Clause (b) of Entry (5) prescribed the educational qualifications and the eligibility (minimum number of years of service in the feeder post) for promotion. Clause (e) of Entry (5) prescribed the mode of selection for promotion as "interviews and assessment of performance reports for preceding three years period".

2. The first respondent Bank drew up a common seniority list of all the eligible candidates (candidates possessing the prescribed educational qualifications who have put in the prescribed period of service) from the feeder grades. Then the eligible candidates were subjected to a comparative assessment based on marks secured with reference to four parameters adopted by the 3 Board of Directors of the first respondent-Bank at its 58th Meeting, on the basis of the norms prescribed by the National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development (for short `NABARD'). The four parameters and maximum marks allocated to each of them were as under:

(emphasis supplied)

10. It is now well-settled that if an appointment or promotion is made without considering the claims of all the available eligible candidates and/or without following the relevant rules, the service rendered in pursuance of such illegal appointment or promotion cannot be equated to service rendered in pursuance of an appointment or promotion validly and lawfully made. Whenever a person is promoted to a post without following 11 the rules prescribed for such promotion, he should be treated as a person not regularly promoted to that post. Consequently, where promotions are governed by Rules, in computing the length of service, in the post to which an employee is promoted, it is not permissible to include the period of service rendered in pursuance of an illegal promotion which is subsequently set aside. It, therefore, follows that the period of service rendered by the appellants from 1990 to 2001 cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority in the cadre of Officers/Field Superiors. Therefore, the appellants in C.A. No.1789/2002 are also not entitled to any relief.

11. Therefore, all the appeals and the applications for impleadment are dismissed.