2009 Supreme(SC) 1766

2009(7) Supreme 487
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. V. Raveendran and K.S. Radhakrishnan, JJ.
Rupa Rani Rakshit & Ors. — Appellants
versus
Jharkhand Gramin Bank & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1786 of 2002
Decided on : 24-11-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
If an appointment or promotion is made without considering the claims of all the available eligible candidates and/or without following the relevant rules, the service rendered in pursuance of such illegal appointment or promotion cannot be equated to service rendered in pursuance of an appointment or promotion validly and lawfully made.
2. Whenever a person is promoted to a post without following the rules prescribed for such promotion, he should be treated as a person not regularly promoted to that post.

Headnote:The Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1988 – Rule 5-Provincial Rural Banks Act,1976 – Promotion of 31 candidates from among list of clerical cadre to the post of Field Supervisors in the order of merit by respondent Bank – Writ petition filed by respondent 3 contending that in making the promotions, Bank had ignored the principle of seniority – cum – merit prescribed under the Rules and had followed the principle of merit – cum –seniority – Allowed by Single Judge of High Court, holding that the promotions effected without following principle of seniority – cum – merit, but on a comparative assessment of merit which was based on marks for academic qualifications, interview etc. were illegal – Appeals filed by appellants – Dismissed by High Court-Appeals- Instantly bank did not subject the eligible candidates to any process of assessment to ascertain any specified minimum merit, for the purpose of promoting the candidates who possessed the minimum merit, on the basis seniority – On the other hand, the Bank proceeded to assess their inter–se–merit with reference to four criteria (period of service, educational qualification, performance during three years, and interview) by allocating respectively maximum marks of 40, 6, 24 and 30 (out of a total 100 marks) and then proceeded to promote those who had secured the highest marks in the order of merit – Thus there were two violations of the relevant rules, firstly promoting candidates on merit–cum–seniority and not on seniority-cum-merit; and assessing inter–se merit, inter alia with reference to marks allocated to different educational qualifications – It could not, hence , be said that the promotions made were on the basis of seniority–cum–merit– Though period of service was also considered as one of factors for assessment of comparative merit, procedure adopted for promotion was merit–cum–seniority – High Court was, hence justified in interfering with the promotions – Appeals, having no merit, dismissed (Para 7)

        The Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1988 – Rule 5 – Provincial Rural Banks Act,1976 – Promotion of 31 candidates from among list of clerical cadre to the post of Field Supervisors in the order of merit by respondent Bank – Contention of appellants that when the High Court set aside the said promotions and directed a fresh process of promotions by adopting the principle of seniority–cum–merit, Bank accordingly made fresh promotions by order dated 24.4.2001 and these three appellants were again promoted with effect from 9.4.2001-But their seniority in the post of Field Supervisor was reckoned from the date of their fresh promotion i.e. 9.4.2001 and the previous period of service as Field Supervisor from 1990 to 2001 was ignored-Plea of appellants that their service as Field Supervisors between 1990 and 2001 should also be counted for the purpose of their seniority in the post of Field Supervisors, further promotions and other benefits-Held It is now well – settled that if an appointment or promotion is made without considering the claims of all the available eligible candidates and/or without following the relevant rules, the service rendered in pursuance of such illegal appointment or promotion cannot be equated to service rendered in pursuance of an appointment or promotion validly and lawfully made- Whenever a person is promoted to a post without following the rules prescribed for such promotion, he should be treated as a person not regularly promoted to that post – Consequently, where promotions are governed by Rules, in computing the length of service, in the post to which an employee is promoted, it is not permissible to include the period of service rendered in pursuance of an illegal promotion which is subsequently set aside-Hence held that period of service rendered by the appellants from 1990 to 2001 could not be counted for the purpose of seniority in the cadre of Officers/Field Superiors (Para 10)

       Facts of the Case :

        Respondent Bank herein in the instant case promoted 31 candidates from among list of clerical cadre to the post of Field Supervisors in the order of merit by respondent Bank. Writ petition was filed by respondent 3 contending that in making the promotions, Bank had ignored the principle of seniority-cum-merit prescribed under the Rules and had followed the principle of merit-cum-seniority. Said petition was allowed by Single Judge of High Court, holding that the promotions effected without following principle of seniority-cum-merit, but on a comparative assessment of merit which was based on marks for academic qualifications, interview etc. were illegal. Appeals filed thereagainst by appellants were dismissed by High Court.

        2. Present appeals have been filed against said orders of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        Instantly bank did not subject the eligible candidates to any process of assessment to ascertain any specified minimum merit, for the purpose of promoting the candidates who possessed the minimum merit, on the basis seniority. On the other hand, the Bank proceeded to assess their inter-se-merit with reference to four criteria (period of service, educational qualification, performance during three years, and interview) by allocating respectively maximum marks of 40, 6, 24 and 30 (out of a total 100 marks) and then proceeded to promote those who had secured the highest marks in the order of merit. Thus there were two violations of the relevant rules, firstly promoting candidates on merit-cum-seniority and not on seniority-cum-merit; and assessing inter-se merit, inter alia with reference to marks allocated to different educational qualifications. It could not, hence , be said that the promotions made were on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. Though period of service was also considered as one of factors for assessment of comparative merit, procedure adopted for promotion was merit-cum-seniority. High Court was, hence justified in interfering with the promotions. Appeals, having no merit, were dismissed.