2006 Supreme(SC) 470

2006(4) Supreme 673
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur)
B.N. Srikrishna and R.V. Raveendran, JJ.
Hargovind Yadav—Appellant
versus
Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank & Ors.—Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1153 of 2003
Decided on 9-5-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Vivek Tankha, Sr. Advocate, S.S. Chauhan, S.P. Kale, H. Pathak, T. Mahipal, Advocates.
For the Respondents : T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, Sr. Advocate, T.G. Narayanan Nair, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Where the criterion for making promotion from the post of clerk to that of Field Supervisor was seniority-cum-merit but the Bank did not follow the criterion of seniority-cum-merit but made promotions on the basis of merit-cum-seniority, the promotion was vitiated and therefore invalid.

Headnote:Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976—Section 29 rw/s 17—Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Other Employees) Rules, 1988—Rules 5 & 10—Promotion to the post of Field Supervisors on basis of seniority cum merit from amongst confirmed senior clerk-cum-cashiers, junior-cum-cashiers etc.—Method prescribed for ascertaining the minimum necessary merit required for promotion by senior cum merit is interviews and assessment of performance reports for the preceding 3 years—Procedure whereby only 20 marks were allocated to seniority and 80 marks were allocated for other factors for purpose of assessment—On challenge, single Judge of the High Court held that promotions had been made not on basis of seniority cum merit, but on basis of merit-cum seniority—Promotions of two of the juniors of appellant were quashed with a direction to the Bank to consider case of appellant—However, appellant was not promoted—It was held that appellant having failed to secure minimum marks of 10 in the interview, was rightly not promoted—Whether entire procedure adopted by the bank is in consonance with the principle of seniority cum merit—(No)—Bank did not follow the criterion of seniority-cum-merit but made promotions on the basis of merit-cum-seniority—Promotion was vitiated and therefore invalid—Direction made to respondent bank to promote appellant as a field Supervisor—Constitution of India—Article 142.

       Held : Interviews can be held and assessment of performance can be made by the Bank in connection with promotions. But that can be only to assess the minimum necessary merit. But where the procedure adopted, does not provide the minimum standard for promotion, but only the minimum standard for interview and does the selection with reference to comparative marks, it is contrary to the Rule of ‘seniority-cum-merit’. This aspect of the matter has been completely lost sight of by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court in this round of litigation. As noticed above, they have proceeded on the basis that the appellant having failed to secure the minimum marks prescribed for interview, was rightly denied promotion, by ignoring the principle laid down by this court in SIVAIAH in regard to seniority-cum-merit. At all events, as the promotion policy adopted by the Bank was held to be illegal in the earlier round of litigation (W.P. No. 4485/1993 dated 13.10.1988), the Bank could not have adopted the same policy to again reject the Appellant for promotion.(Para 17)

       As we have already noticed, in this case, the procedure is not one of ascertaining the minimum necessary merit and then promoting the candidates with the minimum merit in accordance with seniority, but assessing the comparative merit by drawing up a merit list, the assessment being with reference to marks secured for seniority, performance, postings at rural/difficult places and interview. The fact that the appellant had failed to secure the minimum marks in interview, is not relevant as the entire procedure adopted by the bank (of which interview is a part) is found to be vitiated and not in consonance with the principle of seniority cum merit.(Para 18)

       The next question that arises for consideration is the relief to be granted. The appellant was first considered for promotion during 1991 and was not promoted, by wrongly adopting the principle of merit-cum-seniority. The said procedure was found to be erroneous by the Single Judge, Division Bench and by this court. The Bank was directed to consider the case of Appellant for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. Thereafter, in the contempt proceedings initiated by the appellant, the Bank undertook to comply with the order directing consideration of the appellant’s case by the procedure of seniority cum merit. But the Bank, again by adopting the merit-cum-seniority method, failed to promote the appellant and promoted third respondent. The procedure adopted by the Bank had been found to be faulty on three occasions by this Court and the High Court, one of which was in the case of Appellant himself. The appellant had been denied promotion for more than 16 years by repeatedly adopting such an erroneous procedure. In the circumstances, we do not think it necessary to drive the appellant once again to face the process of selection for promotion.(Para 21)

       Having regard to the factual background of the case, and having regard to the fact that even under the merit cum seniority basis adopted by the bank the appellant had secured high marks and he was denied promotion on the ground that he failed to secure minimum marks in the interview, there is no need to refer the matter for fresh consideration. With a view to do complete justice, in exercise of our power under Article 142 we hereby direct the first respondent bank to promote the appellant as a Field Supervisor, from the date the third defendant was promoted as Field Supervisor and place his above the third Respondent. However, he will be entitled to monetary benefits flowing from such promotion only prospectively, though the pay is to be refixed with reference to the retrospective date of promotion.(Para 21)