2009 Supreme(SC) 1747

2009(7) Supreme 383
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R V Raveendran and P. Sathasivam,JJ.
Rajendra Kumar Srivastava & Ors. — Appellants
versus
Samyut Kshetriya Gramin Bank & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6691 of 2001
Decided on : 17-11-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
Principle of seniority-cum-merit, for promotion, is different from the principle of ‘seniority’ and principle of ‘merit-cum-seniority’. Where promotion is on the basis of seniority alone,merit will not play any part at all. But where promotion is on the principle of seniority-cum-merit, promotion is not automatic with reference to seniority alone. Merit will also play a significant role

Headnote:Service law – Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Other Employees) Rules, 1988 – Rule 5 – Promotion to posts of Area Managers and Senior Managers-Writ petition by appellants for quashing the entire promotion process of respondent1 bank from scale I to scale II culminating and for a direction to respondent1 bank to undertake the promotion process afresh – Case of appellants that the concept of promotion by seniority – cum – merit, did not contemplate prescribing of minimum qualifying marks for assessment of performance/interview, before applying the principle of seniority for promotion – Appellants contended that restricting the promotion to only those who secured the minimum qualifying marks, was violative of the seniority – cum –merit principle – Held that a process whereby eligible candidates possessing the minimum necessary merit in the feeder posts is first ascertained and thereafter, promotions are made strictly in accordance with seniority, from among those who possess the minimum necessary merit is recognised and accepted as complying with the principle of ‘seniority – cum-merit’ – What would offend the rule of seniority – cum – merit is a process where after assessing the minimum necessary merit, promotions are made on the basis of merit (instead of seniority) from among the candidates possessing the minimum necessary merit – If the criteria adopted for assessment of minimum necessary merit is bona fide and not unreasonable, it is not open to challenge, as being opposed to principle of seniority – cum – merit – Hence held that prescribing minimum qualifying marks to ascertain the minimum merit necessary for discharging the functions of the higher post, was not violative of concept of promotion by seniority – cum –merit. (Paras 10)

        Service law – Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Other Employees) Rules, 1988 – Rule 5 – Promotion to posts of Area Managers and Senior Managers – Writ petition by appellants for quashing the entire promotion process of respondent1 bank from scale I to scale II culminating and for a direction to respondent1 bank to undertake the promotion process afresh – Contention of appellants that even if any qualifying marks could be prescribed for assessing the minimum necessary merit required to meet the efficiency of administration, the fixation of an extremely high mark of 78 out of 100 as qualifying marks, had the effect of converting the criteria of promotion from seniority – cum – merit to merit – cum – seniority – Held What should be the minimum necessary merit for promotion, is a matter that is decided by management, having in mind the requirements of the post to which promotions are to be made-The employer has the discretion to fix different minimum merit, for different categories of posts, subject to the relevant Rules-For example, for promotions at lower levels, it may fix a lesser minimum qualifying marks and fix a comparatively higher minimum qualifying marks for higher posts – In the first respondent Bank, the post of officer – Grade II (Area Managers and Senior Managers) is a very senior position, next only to the top post of General Manager-As the officers promoted to Scale II were required to head larger branches or departments in the Head Office, shouldering higher responsibilities and virtually competing with commercial banks, it could not be said that the fixing the minimum qualifying marks at 78% was excessive, unreasonable or arbitrary (Paras 11 to 14)

        Principle of seniority – cum – merit – Scope and ambit – Principle of seniority – cum –merit, for promotion, is different from the principle of ‘seniority’ and principle of ‘merit-cum-seniority’ – Where promotion is on the basis of seniority alone, merit will not play any part at all – But where promotion is on the principle of seniority – cum – merit, promotion is not automatic with reference to seniority alone- Merit will also play a significant role – The standard method of seniority – cum – merit is to subject all the eligible candidates in the feeder grade (possessing the prescribed educational qualification and period of service) to a process of assessment of a specified minimum necessary merit and then promote the candidates who are found to possess the minimum necessary merit strictly in the order of seniority – The minimum merit necessary for the post may be assessed either by subjecting the candidates to a written examination or an interview or by assessment of their work performance during the previous years, or by a combination of either two or all the three of the aforesaid methods – There is no hard and fast rule as to how the minimum merit is to be ascertained – So long as the ultimate promotions are based on seniority, any process for ascertaining the minimum necessary merit, as a basic requirement, will not militate against the principle of seniority – cum – Merit (Para 8)

       Facts of the Case :

        Issue in consideration in present case was whether minimum qualifying marks could be prescribed for assessment of past performance and interview, where the promotions are to be made on the principle of seniority-cum-merit?

        2. It was the case of appellants that the concept of promotion by seniority-cum-merit, did not contemplate prescribing of minimum qualifying marks for assessment of performance/interview, before applying the principle of seniority for promotion. Appellants contended that restricting the promotion to only those who secured the minimum qualifying marks, was violative of the seniority-cum-merit principle.

       Findings of the Court :

        Held that a process whereby eligible candidates possessing the minimum necessary merit in the feeder posts is first ascertained and thereafter, promotions are made strictly in accordance with seniority, from among those who possess the minimum necessary merit is recognised and accepted as complying with the principle of ‘seniority-cum-merit’. What would offend the rule of seniority-cum-merit is a process where after assessing the minimum necessary merit, promotions are made on the basis of merit (instead of seniority) from among the candidates possessing the minimum necessary merit. If the criteria adopted for assessment of minimum necessary merit is bona fide and not unreasonable, it is not open to challenge, as being opposed to principle of seniority-cum-merit. Hence held that prescribing minimum qualifying marks to ascertain the minimum merit necessary for discharging the functions of the higher post, was not violative of concept of promotion by seniority-cum-merit.