R.K. Aggarwal vs Canara Bank and Another

A.L. Bahri, J.—R.K. Aggarwal, the petitioner, is an employee of the Canara Bank. He challenges in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, order Annexure P/7, dated August 21, 1991, whereby his appeal was summarily dismissed. The petitioner was employed, as a Clerk in May 1979 with Laxmi Commercial Sank which subsequently merged in the Canara Bank The petitioner had been passing annual tests. The Bank framed a policy--Annexure P/1 on June 6, 1992 laying down criterion for promotion. Since the petitioner was not promo ed, his representation/appeal was rejected. The petitioner challenges the aforesaid policy-Annexure P/1 as well as the order Annexure P/7.

The so-called appeal which was disposed of vide Annexure P/7 was not a statutory appeal. No Rules have been cited to indicate the existence of right of appeal that an opportunity of bearing could be given to the petitioner or a reasoned order, was expected to be passed thereon. Thus on that ground order Annexure P/7 is not liable to be quashed. Otherwise it has not been shown, that the persons alleged to be junior to him were wrongly granted promotion or that the promotion was against the policy decision Annexure P/1.

With respect to the challenge to the policy-Annexure P/1 it has been stated that the provisions therein were arbitrary giving unbridled power to the Management in the manner of promotion to the post of Junior Management Grade Scale-1. Total 120 Marks were provided for promotion on the basis of market, Their break-up is as under:--

For Service Record : 30 Marks For interview : 30 Marks For examination : 30 Marks For qualifications : 30 Marks Total : 120 Marks

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the provision for 30 Marks for interview is against the principles of natural justice when for examination (written test) the total marks ate 30 In this context reference has been made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, . That was a case relating to recruitment of Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch). The Public Service Commission was to make the selection after holding a written test and Viva Voce. In such circumstances it was held that marks for Viva-Voce test could not be more than 12 per cent of the total marks provided for written test. That was a case of fresh recruitment to the service. The position in the present case is entirely different. The present is a case of promotion on the basis of merit. On the basis of seniority as well as promotion is permissible. There is a separate provision for direct recruitment to the aforesaid post. The above criterion has been provided for promotion on the basis of merit. Not only written test and Viva-Voce is provided for selection but the service record and qualifications are also to be taken into consideration. The selection is not merely on the basis of merit obtained in the written examination that it can be said in the Viva-Voce test the authority could discriminate in the matter of selection. Even in a case where no written test is provided selection for promotion could be made on the basis of 100% Vova-Voce test. Thus the ratio of Ashok Kumar Yadav''s case is not attracted to the case in hand.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the different provisions of the scheme of promotion provided in Annexure P/1 is arbitrary and should be quashed. There is no force in this contention. It is for the authorities to lay down any criterion for making promotion. Such criterion is to apply to all the employees uniformally. The element of exercise of discrimination is totally lacking. Further more, keeping in view the nature of the job in the institution the authorities are the best judges to formulate any policies to be kept in view in the matter of promotion. Such opinion cannot be substituted by the Courts even if the Courts come to the conclusion that their own opinion would be better suited in the circumstances. The Courts are not to act as policy makers. This contention is thus repelled.

With the result finding no merit in the writ petition the same is dismissed.