Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
I.P. Mukerji, J.
Debabrata Maity - Petitioner
Versus
The Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 19558 (W) of 2010
Decided On : 17-6-2015
For the Petitioners:Mr. Piush Chaturvedi, Mr. Asit Baran Ghosh Mr. Bhagbat Chaudhury and Mr. K.K. Mitra, Advocates.
For the Respondent-Bank:Mr. Dipak Kumar Paul, Advocate.
A change in the terms and conditions of a selection process after it has been initiated is not binding on the candidates if it prejudices their chances of promotion, and a selection process based on seniority-cum-merit cannot be changed to merit-cum-seniority without affecting the validity of the process.
Headnote:
REGIONAL RURAL BANK - PROMOTION - ELIGIBILITY - CHANGE IN CONDITIONS - SENIORITY-CUM-MERIT - VALIDITY - EFFECT ON SELECTION PROCESS - ARBITRARINESS - UNFAIRNESS - DISCRIMINATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an officer in a Regional Rural Bank, challenged the bank's decision not to promote him to the post of Middle Manager Scale-II (MMG) in a selection process initiated in 2002. The selection process was based on seniority-cum-merit, with a minimum eligibility criterion of eight years of service as an officer in Scale-I cadre. However, by a corrigendum dated 5th April, 2003, the bank changed the eligibility criteria, which allowed officers with one year of service to earn 5 marks and continue to earn 5 marks for every completed year of service for ten years. The petitioner argued that the changed conditions prejudiced his chances of promotion as it increased the number of eligible candidates and shifted the focus from seniority to merit.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the changed conditions were not binding on the petitioner as they caused him great prejudice. The original conditions assured him full marks on account of seniority due to his 18 years of service, but the changed conditions allowed Scale-I officers with 10 years of service to be at par with him, increasing the number of eligible candidates and making merit a more significant factor in the selection process.
Issues: 1. Whether the bank could change the terms and conditions of the selection process after it had been initiated. 2. Whether the changed conditions prejudiced the petitioner's chances of promotion. 3. Whether the selection process, as modified by the corrigendum, was still based on seniority-cum-merit.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on several precedents to establish that once the terms and conditions of a selection process are notified, they cannot be changed unless the changes are made retrospectively. 2. The court held that the changed conditions prejudiced the petitioner's chances of promotion as they increased the number of eligible candidates and shifted the focus from seniority to merit. 3. The court held that the selection process, as modified by the corrigendum, was no longer based on seniority-cum-merit but had shifted to merit-cum-seniority, which was not permissible under the original notification.
Final Decision: The court set aside the bank's decision dated 12th August, 2010, and declared the petitioner eligible for promotion from JMG Scale-I post to MMG Scale-II post in the selection process notified on 14th September, 2002. The court directed the bank to compute and fix the petitioner's pay/salary and other applicable allowances from the date of promotion on 23rd May, 2003, and to pay him the arrear differential salary, allowances, and monetary benefits within three months.
I.P. Mukerji, J.
Five Regional Rural Banks in West Bengal amalgamated on 21st February, 2007. They were Mallabhum Gramin Bank, Murshidabad Gramin Bank, Gour Gramin Bank, Nadia Gramin Bank and Sagar Gramin Bank. A new Regional Rural Bank, Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, the first respondent was established. Its head office is in Berhampur in Murshidabad District.
2. The writ petitioner was working as an officer in the Junior Management Grade, Scale-I in Mallabhum Gramin Bank, prior to its amalgamation on 21st February, 2007. On 14th September, 2002 this bank made a notification with regard to promotion of officers from Junior Management Grade (JMG) Scale-I to the post of Middle Manager Scale-II post (MMG). According to this notification, on 23rd August, 2002 the Board of Directors of this bank resolved that 62 vacancies in the Middle Manager Grade-II would be filled up by promotion of eligible officers from JMG Scale-I.
3. One eligibility criterion in that notification is of great relevance. It is para-1 (b) (ii) which stipulated eight years of service as an officer in the scale-I cadre as the minimum eligibility criterion for consideration for promotion to the said post.
4. The basis of evaluation of candidates is also of great importance. It shows the exact weightage that was given to the factors that were considered for promotion. This would appear paragraph 1 (e) as follows:-
(e) Modus Operandi for selection
The allocation of marks for Promotion will be as under.
(i) Seniority - 50 marks
(ii) Performance - 30 marks
(iii) Interview - 20 marks
5. The appraisal of performance would be in respect of three immediately preceding years. 10 marks were allocated for each year. If the performance of the candidate was outstanding he would be awarded 10 marks, if it was very good he would be given 8 marks, 6 marks and 4 marks for good and satisfactory performance respectively.
6. The seniority marks would be calculated at the rate of 5 marks per year after 8 years of service upto a maximum marks of 50.
7. By a corrigendum dated 5th April, 2003 an essential condition in the notification dated 14th September, 2002 was sought to be changed by Mallabhum Gramin Bank. By this corrigendum after the very first year of service a candidate would earn 5 marks per year on account of seniority upto a maximum of 50 marks. On 9th April, 2003 the said bank announced that the selection process for filling up of the above 62 number of vacancies arising upto 31st March, 1998 bank was commenced. The writ petitioner was asked to present himself for interview on 23rd April, 2003 at about 2.30 p.m.
8. Promotion was granted on 23rd May, 2003. The name of the petitioner did not figure in the list. Ultimately with effect from 5th August, 2005 the petitioner was promoted from Scale-I to Scale-II as communicated to him by the letter dated 15th January, 2010 of the writ petitioner bank.
9. If the case of the petitioner has to be put in brief, he was entitled to the same promotion on 23rd May, 2003. Not granting promotion to him from this date was wrongful on the part of the bank. He has lost the benefit of promotion from 23rd May, 2003 to 5th August, 2005 when his juniors superseded him with additional benefits. He has retired after 31st March, 2015. He wants the benefit arising out of the promotion made on 23rd May, 2003 to be granted to him with retrospective effect from the said date.
10. On 10th June, 2010, a writ application WP 8614 (W) of 2003 was moved by the writ petitioner on the self-same cause of action. By his order dated 10th June, 2010 Mr. Justice Debasish Kar Gupta directed the bank to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of the order.
11. By a decision of the bank dated 12th August, 2010 the petitioners case was dismissed.
12. Hence, the present writ.
13. Mr. Chaturvedi, learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner made some pointed submissions. He said that the vacancy as stat
