L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner joined as clerk in the Syndicate Bank-respondents in the year 1976. According to Syndicate Bank officers Services Regulations, 1979 (for short the Regulations ) framed by the respondents, 75% of the vacancies in the junior Management Grade Scale I cadre are to be filled by promotion of Clerks. This promotion is to be on the basis of performance at the written test and viva voce held for the purpose. The Regulations have also provided for awarding of fixed weightage marks for various items, such as, education qualifications, length of service, departmental tests, etc.

( 2 ) IN the year 1980, the petitioner appeared in the examination held for the purpose of selecting the candidates for promotion to Officers cadre. On the basis of his performance and assessment by the selection Committee, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Manager through orders dated 8-12-1980 and was posted at gaziabad branch in Uttar Pradesh. When he joined at Gaziabad and was working at that place, he was asked to report back to his previous place of work viz. , Vidupanakal branch in Anantapur.

( 3 ) THE petitioner was issued orders on 29-12-1980 wherein it was stated that during the course of selection to the officers cadre, the petitioner was awarded 34 marks for the qualifications, whereas he was eligible to be awarded 24 marks only and on the basis of the actual marks, he will not be entitled to be promoted. In that view of the matter, he was directed to discharge his duties as Clerk. In effect, this was an order of reversion.

( 4 ) THE petitioner filed WP. No. 6721/80 challenging the orders of reversion contending inter alia that the same was violative of principles of natural justice. Inasmuch it was not in dispute that the respondents did not issue any show cause notice to the petitioner before passing the order dated 29-12-1980, the writ petition was allowed "through order dated 4-3-1982 and the order impugned therein was set aside. However, it was left open to the respondents to take appropriate steps, if they are so advised. The respondents carried the matter in appeal by filing WA. No. 369/ 1982. The writ appeal was dismissed on 19-4-1982.

( 5 ) AFTER the dismissal of the writ appeal, the respondents issued a detailed show-cause notice dated 30-6-1982. In this show-cause notice, the respondents have referred to the Rule position as well as the qualifications held by the petitioner and have also stated as to how the petitioner was not entitled to be promoted. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to show cause as to why he shall not be placed in the Clerical cadre. Exchange of letters took place between the petitioner and the respondents. Ultimately the petitioner submitted his explanation contradicting the version of the respondents. In that view of the matter, the respondents appointed an Enquiry officer, who, in turn, conducted the enquiry on several dates duly giving opportunity to. the petitioner. He submitted his report dated 11-12-1989, holding that the proposed action of the respondents is justified. In view of the findings of the Enquiry officer, the respondents passed orders dated 22-1-1990, withdrawing the promotion that was accorded to the petitioner in the year 1980. It was ordered that since the petitioner has performed the duties of the Officer till the date of the said order, the difference of wages shall not be recovered.

( 6 ) IN the counter-affidavit, the respondents submit that the policy for promotion from Clerical cadre to the officers cadre was formulated in the year 1972, providing for weightage of marks to educational qualifications, length of service, departmental tests, etc. According to them, on a wrong interpretation of the policy, the petitioner and other candidates were awarded 10 marks for Post Graduation and another 10 marks for Double Graduation, though such candidates were entitled for 10 marks alone. When this anomaly was noticed in the year 1980, the cases

Click Here to Read the rest of this document