Union Commercial Bank and Others vs Ghasilal Meena and Others

By judgment impugned dated 8.5.2003 learned Single Bench, while accepting SB Civil Writ Petition No. 251/1998, directed the appellant respondents to prepare a fresh separate list of Scheduled Tribe candidates for promotion to the post of Junior Management Scale-I, taking into consideration the marks obtained in written test, service and qualification and further to promote the respondent petitioners, if found eligible.

In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants is that the criteria for promotion to the post of Junior Management Scale-I from the post of Clerk is merit-cum-seniority wherein merit is required to be assessed by written test only, learned Single Bench, therefore, erred while directing the appellants to prepare a fresh list of the candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribe by taking into consideration service record and qualificational attainments alongwith the marks obtained in written test for assessment of merit.

The factual matrix necessary to be noticed for adjudication of this appeal is that the respondent petitioners, members of Scheduled Tribe, are holding the post of Clerk with the appellant bank and are having an avenue for promotion to the post of Junior Management Scale-I. The appellant bank by circular dated 28.11.1996 initiated process of promotion to the post aforesaid against 312 existing vacancies sought to be filled in by adopting the criteria of merit-cum-seniority. Clause 3.6.1 of the memorandum of settlement provides for a mode i.e. to be adopted while considering candidature of a person eligible for promotion under the criteria of merit-cum-seniority and that reads as under:-

"3.6.1 Merit cum Seniority Channel

Under Merit-cum-Seniority channel, there will be assessment of 100 marks distributed in the following manner:-

No candidate should get more than 20 marks for educational qualifications.

NOTE

1) Applications will be invited from eligible clerical staff to appear for the written test only those who conform to the prescribed norms shall be eligible to appear for the written test.

2) Pass marks in the written test to be conducted by IPBS will be 35% (for SC/ST candidates 30%).

3) Candidates who pass the test will be ranked on the basis of marks obtained in the written test and those who shall rank within the number equivalent to three times the vacancies declared for this channel will be considered for promotion on the basis of aggregate marks secured in the written test, service and qualification. The candidates who secure the same number of marks in the aggregated shall be ranked on the basis of inter-se-seniority. The candidates securing rank on the basis of aggregate marks as above within the number of vacancies set apart for this channel would be empanelled and declared promoted."

The respondent petitioners though qualified the written test but secured marks less than 19.5, hence promotion was not accorded to them but to their juniors who were having more marks in written test than them. The respondent petitioners by way of filing a petition for writ agitated their cause with contention that according to para 3.6.1 their merit could have been assessed by taking into consideration marks obtained in written test as well as against service experience and educational qualification attainments.

The appellant respondents while defending denial of promotion to the respondent petitioners submitted that the persons junior than the respondent petitioners, to whom promotion has been given, secured more marks in written test, hence under the criteria of merit-cum-seniority promotion was accorded to them and the respondents petitioners were rightly superseded. Learned Single Bench did not accept the defence and held that as per clause 3.6.1 of the settlement, merit should have been determined by taking into consideration the marks obtained in three categories i.e. written test, service and qualification.

As already stated, the argument advanced in appeal is the same that was examined by learned Single Bench. Para 3.6.1 of the settlement prescribes three counts, those are required to be taken into consideration while assessing merit of an incumbent eligible for promotion to the post of Junior Management Scale-I under the criteria of merit-cum-seniority. As per Note-3, the candidates qualifying written test are required to be ranked on basis of marks obtained in written test and those who find place therein and the persons standing in rank within the number equivalent to three times of the vacancies available, shall be considered for promotion on basis of aggregate marks secured in written test, service and qualification.

It is not in dispute that the respondent petitioners qualified the written test and they were also in the list of the persons eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Junior Management Scale-I. On being placed in the rank list containing upto three times, number of eligible candidates than to the vacancies available, the candidature of the respondent petitioners should have been considered by taking into consideration marks obtained by them in written test, service and qualification. The criteria of written test is only for placement of an eligible person in the rank list and as per Note-3 (supra) the merit is required to be determined on basis of aggregate marks secured in the written test, service and qualification. The appellant respondents admittedly determined merit without taking into consideration marks secured by the respondent petitioners under the head of service and qualification, therefore, learned Single Bench rightly arrived at the conclusion that the same was not in accordance with the law applicable.

The appeal, for the reasons above, is having no merit, hence dismissed.