Rama Shankar Tiwary vs Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank and Others

Honourable Mr. Justice S.N. Hussain

Learned Counsel for the petitioner is present. No one appears for the Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank and its authorities (respondent nos. 1 to 3). On the earlier occasion also no one had appeared on behalf of the said respondents when the case was called out. A counter affidavit as well as a rejoinder had been filed as far back as on 06.05.1998 and 15.01.1999, but no one is there to press the same.

So far the other respondent nos. 4 to 28 are concerned, notices were repeatedly sent to them by ordinary processes as well as by registered posts on specific orders of this Court and were validly served, but none of those respondents appeared in the instant writ case although it is pending since 15 long years.

In the said circumstances, this Court has got no option but to decide the matter after hearing Learned Counsel for the petitioner, who is present in the Court and to decide the writ petition after considering the petition, counter affidavit, reply and rejoinder along with their annexures, which are available on record.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing respondent nos. 1 to 3 to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit rule for the post of Area Manager/Senior Manager along with other eligible candidates as per directions contained in the judgment and order passed by a bench of this Court in CWJC No. 1452 of 1986 and 7556 of 1992 and alternative relief was claimed for directing the respondents to promote the petitioner from the date persons junior to him had been promoted to the said post, i.e. with effect from 15.02.1986 and for directing the authorities to grant all consequential reliefs to the petitioner treating him to have been promoted with effect from that date along with other ancillary reliefs to which the petitioner is deemed entitled.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed in the Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as ''the Bank'' for the sake of brevity) on 20.12.1976 and at the time of filing of the writ petition he was posted as Branch Manager Darihat Branch Office of the Bank. It is also stated that on 31.12.1984, a circular was issued by National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (hereinafter referred to as ''the NABARD'' for the sake of brevity) directing that persons having worked for eight years or more in the Bank would be eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Area Manager/Senior Manager internally on the basis of non selection rules of seniority cum merit, whereafter the respondent-Bank acting upon the said guidelines identified 13 posts of Area Manager/Senior Manager in the Bank and decided to fill them up internally on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and call all the eligible candidates including the petitioner for promotion, but while making the selection list, the authorities of the Bank did not follow the non-selection rules of seniority-cum-merit and prepared a select list of persons on the basis of comparative merit of marks obtained by them under the head of seniority, performance and interview and out of the said list the persons placed at serial no. 1 to 13 were promoted, whereas the petitioner was kept in waiting list as he had been placed at serial no. 15.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the persons placed below the petitioner in the merit list filed writ petitions bearing CWJC No. 1452 of 1986 and CWJC No. 7556 of 1992 challenging the decision/resolution of the Board of Directors of the Bank dated 04.05.1986 by which 13 persons were promoted and three persons, including the petitioner, were kept in the waiting list. Both the aforesaid writ petitions were heard together and were allowed vide common judgment dated 20.10.1996 and the resolution of the Board of Directors of the Bank dated 04.05.1986 along with consequential orders of promotion were quashed and the authorities of the Bank were directed to consider the matter regarding promotion of those writ petitioners as well as of all eligible candidates as per the directions given therein.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner avers that the respondent Bank did not challenge the aforesaid judgment of the High Court, whereas some of the promotees challenged the said order in the Apex court vide SLP (C) No. 3132 and 3133 of 1997, but the same was dismissed on 12.09.1997. But in spite of that the authorities of the Bank vide order dated 05.11.1997 in stead of considering all the eligible persons for promotion as directed by the High Court promoted only 11 persons and that too notionally with effect from 15.2.1986 which was clearly against the letter and spirit of the decision of the High Court which was affirmed up till the Supreme court.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner claims that several of the aforesaid promotees were junior to the writ petitioners and the petitioner was under legitimate expectation of being considered for promotion as his name had already been mentioned in the waiting list of select candidates, but he was not considered at all for promotion on the ground that there was punishment given to him before the interview held at the time of recruitment on 4/5.02.1986.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that requirement of law was that the candidate should not have been punished before the cut off date and cut off date was 31.12.1985 and till that date no punishment was given nor any proceeding was initiated nor any charges were framed against the petitioner and hence rejection of the petitioner''s promotion on the said ground is absolutely arbitrary, illegal and perverse.

On the other hand, it is claimed by the respondents and its authorities in their counter affidavit and rejoinder that on perusal of the aforesaid judgment of this Hon''ble Court, it would appear that the Hon''ble Court quashed the relevant resolution of the Board of Directors as also the consequential orders of promotion, and issued a writ of mandamus to the Bank for considering the matter of promotion of all the eligible candidates. The Hon''ble Court however clarified that the aforesaid quashing would not preclude the Bank from considering the cases of the writ petitioners of the said case (CWJC No. 1452 of 1986 and 7556 of 1992) for promotion from the date when their juniors were promoted if such vacancies were available and in such circumstances, the promoted officers (concerned respondents of those writ petitions) may not be reverted back to make room for their seniors by virtue of quashing of their impugned order of promotion.

It was also contended that in obedience to the orders of this Hon''ble Court (Annexure-3), the case of 14 officers were considered including the petitioner. However, during such consideration, the petitioner was found not eligible for promotion on account of the contemplated disciplinary proceeding against him for which show cause notice dated 31.08.1985/04.09.1985 was issued to him followed by the charge-sheet dated 17.1.1986 and finally the punishment was awarded to the petitioner as per letter No. STF/22/3437 dated 22.5.1986. Therefore, from the above it would appear that the petitioner was not eligible for his promotion on the date of interview i.e. 04/05.02.1986 for such promotion.

It was further asserted by the authorities of Bank that the allegations of the petitioner to the effect that two officers who were already promoted from before allowed to continue on their promoted post of Senior Manager/Area Manager whereas they were already punished before the date of interview (04/05/02.1986) was not relevant. In this connection, it was stated that Sri Shital Prasad Chaturvedi (respondent no. 13A) was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of two increments in the year 1980 vide letter dated 03.09.1980, whereas the question of his promotion was considered on 04/05.02.1986. The punishment of withdrawal of financial power and reduction of three increments imposed on Ramautar Singh (respondent no. 16) as per letter dated 07.08.1982 was quashed by this Hon''ble Court in CWJC No. 3514 of 1982 vide judgment dated 20.3.1988.

It was submitted in the rejoinder of the respondent Bank that the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner was contemplated before the cut off date i.e. 31.12.1985 followed by charge-sheet dated 17.1.1986 and finally the punishment was awarded to the petitioner on 22.5.1986, as such the petitioner was not eligible for promotion along with other officers who were promoted on the basis of the said interview.

Considering the entire matter in detail as well as respective pleadings of the parties and the materials annexed thereto, the dispute lies within a very short compass. It is relevant to observe that the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) is an instrumentality of the State and is also an Apex Institution of Rural Banking in India and in such a situation and with such an authority it issues circulars and directions to all the Regional Rural Banks, including circulars fixing eligibility and other criterion for promotion to the post of Area Manager/Senior Manager in the Regional Rural Banks. Under that authority it had issued circular dated 31.12.1984 to that effect and the respondent-Bank and its authorities are bound to comply the same. The criteria fixed in the said circular for promotion was seniority-cum-merit and the authorities of the Bank had to strictly follow the same without any deviation.

Furthermore, order dated 20.12.1996 passed by a bench of this Court allowing CWJC No. 1452 of 1986 and CWJC No. 7556 of 1992 filed by similarly situated employees against the action of the Bank specifically held that the entire process of selection adopted by the Board of Directors of the Bank was contrary to the well established law relating to the rule of seniority-cum-merit, which was admittedly fixed as the basis for promotion by the Board of Directors of the Bank on the direction of the NABARD vide its aforementioned circular.

From a bare perusal of the various documents annexed to the writ petition, counter affidavit, reply and rejoinder, it becomes apparent that the petitioner had fulfilled all the criterion of promotion as per the circular of the NABARD dated 31.12.1984 and the only ground on which the consideration of his promotion was refused was that he had been granted a punishment before the date of interview held by the authorities for the promotion of the candidates, including the petitioner.

From paragraph 4 of the petitioner''s reply and paragraph-7 of the respondents'' rejoinder, it is quite apparent that the admitted position was that the cut off date fixed for consideration of promotion was 31.12.1985 and if before that date any candidate for promotion had been punished or any proceeding had been initiated against him or even if any charge has been framed against him by the authorities he would not be entitled for promotion. It is also an admitted fact that by 31.12.1985 neither any charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner nor any proceeding was initiated against him nor even any punishment was awarded.

The respondents-authorities of the Bank had admitted on affidavit that the charge sheet was issued against the petitioner on 27.01.1986, whereafter proceeding was initiated and some punishment was imposed on 22.05.1986. All these dates are much after the cut off date, i.e. 31.12.1985, whereas the interview was held on 04/05.02.1986 which was also before the petitioner was awarded any punishment. Hence on the cut off date petitioner was fully entitled for consideration of promotion.

In the said circumstances, the authorities concerned while rejecting the petitioner''s candidature from consideration of promotion committed illegality by ignoring cut off date admittedly fixed by the higher authorities for the said purpose, although they should have only seen as to whether before the said cut off date any charge sheet was issued, whether proceeding was initiated or whether any punishment was awarded against the petitioner and for that purpose there was no occasion for considering what had happened after the said cut off date. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of and the respondents-authorities are directed to grant promotion to the petitioner to the post of Area Manager or Senior Manager with effect from 15.02.1986 from which date other persons including two employees juniors to him, had been granted promotion and to pay all the consequential monetary and incremental benefits to the petitioners treating him to have been promoted with effect from that date. The said payment must be made to the petitioner within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.