Pragiyotish Gaonlia Bank & Anr vs Brijlal Das

3. In 1997 the appellant Bank categorised 17 additional Scale I branches as additional Scale II branches. The Bank, therefore, proposed to promote 17 Officers of the Scale I Grade to the Grade of Officers Scale II and issued a Circular to that effect on 10.6.2007. As per the eligibility criteria, all officers, who had put in minimum service of 8 years in the Officers' cadre as on 31.12.1996, were eligible to appear for an interview for internal promotion. The total number of candidates would be restricted to 4 four times the number of vacancies. It was decided by the Bank that such promotion would be on the basis of merit-cum-seniority, and that out of a maximum of 150 marks 40 marks were set apart for the number of years in service. The remaining 110 marks were allocated 3 towards performance at the work place and in the interview, indicating that the selection procedure was to be on the basis of merit-cum-seniority.

6. At this stage it may be indicated that since 17 vacancies were available, 68 candidates were called for interviews for filling up the said 17 vacancies. The respondent No.1 did not fall within the first 17 names in the aforesaid list but was placed at S.No.39 as per his seniority. As a result, though, he was called for interview, he was not automatically selected for promotion to the Scale II grade.

7. The respondent No.1 and one Shri Nagendra Chander Dass, both of whom figured in the list of 68 eligible candidates and were within the zone of consideration, were called for the interview but were not found fit for promotion. They, accordingly, filed Civil Writ Petition No.1601 of 1998 for quashing the abovementioned Circular dated 15.9.1997 issued by the Bank on the basis whereof the successful candidates have been promoted and also prayed that since both of them belong to the Scheduled Caste community they should have been appointed against the reserved posts and that the reservation policy followed by the Bank was contrary to the reservation policy followed by the Government of Assam.

1992 and ending in 1997 the learned single Judge observed that the punishment had been imposed in 1995 and it came to an end in the year 2000. The importance of the said error would be evident from the fact that whereas the punishment of respondent NO.1 came to an end in March 1997, the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting was held on 15.9.1997 and on that date the learned single Judge found that respondent No.1 was eligible for promotion since the period of punishment was already over, and directed that the respondent No.1's promotion should be considered by the bank along with other eligible candidates as and when the next promotion was considered by the authorities. This lapse on the part of the single Judge was used to his advantage by the respondent in preferring an appeal before the Division Bench 6 of the Gauhati High Court. The Division Bench without going into the question of eligibility, apart from the aforesaid error in noting the dates relating to the punishment order of 2001 set aside the order of the single Judge dismissing the writ petition and allowed the writ appeal with direction to appoint the respondent No.1 in the Officers' Scale Grade II from the date his juniors in the cadre of Officers Scale I had been promoted to the higher scale.

9. The Bank has filed the present appeal against the aforesaid order of the Division Bench and has in particular challenged the direction given to the Bank to promote the respondent No.1 to the Officers Grade Scale-II.

18. The appeal filed on behalf of the Bank must, therefore, succeed and is allowed. The judgments of both the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court are set aside.

19. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

________________J.

(ALTAMAS KABIR) ________________J.

(MARKANDEY KATJU) New Delhi Dated: 13.02.2009.