The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the seniority-cum-merit principle in the promotion process, as prescribed in the 'Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Other Employees) Rules, 1988'. The Court emphasized the requirement to achieve minimum necessary merit before considering seniority and cited relevant case laws to support this principle.

JUDGMENT

Rai Chattopadhyay, J.

1. The appellant/writ petitioner is challenging in this appeal, the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge, dated 30/01/2009, in writ petition no. W.P.No. 7491 (W) of 2007.

2. The grievance of the appellant/writ petitioner in the said writ petition was relating to alleged illegal and arbitrary denial of his promotion. The factual background in a nut-shell may be narrated as herein below:-

3. The appellant/writ petitioner joined in service with Sagar Gramin Bank, which is now known as Bangiyo Gramin Bikash Bank (after amalgamation with other regional rural banks), that is, respondent no.1. The date of his appointment in Sagar Gramin Bank, was on 08/07/1986.

4. By dint of a notification dated 21/02/2007 Sagar Gramin Bank was amalgamated with other four regional rural banks and was re-designated as Bangiyo Gramin Bikash Bank, i.e, respondent no. 1 in the said writ petition and in this appeal too.

5. The appellant/writ petitioner has stated that the ‘Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Other Employees) Rules, 1988’, is the governing statute for the appellant as well as the private respondent, so far as the promotion of the appellant or the private respondent/respondent no. 3, is concerned. Vacancy was declared on 10/07/2006, for four posts, which were to be filled up by promotion from clerical grade. The result of the entire process has culminated into promotion of the respondent no. 3. Needless to say that appellant/writ petitioner had also participated in the process of promotion though could not successfully compete.

6. The appellant/writ petitioner has ventilated grievance that in spite of his being duly eligible for promotion to one of the four said vacancies as a Schedule Caste candidate, the respondent authority has acted illegally, arbitrarily and discriminatory to decline appellant’s right for promotion to the said post. Instead, through an irregular process, which has been beyond the stipulations of the governing Rules of 1988, and thus irregular and illegal, respondent no. 3 has been promoted and posted in the concerned post.

7. For redress of such a grievance, the appellant/writ petitioner had moved the writ petition as mentioned above to pray for the relief of setting aside of the order of promotion granted to the respondent no. 3 to the post of ‘Junior Managing Grade, Scale I’, allegedly in supersession of the appellant and for an order directing the respondent authorities to give promotion to the appellant.

8. The Hon’ble Single Bench by dint of its judgment dated 30/01/2009 has relegated the appellant to the Tribunal. The Court has found that

“ The very nature of the grievance sand the claim that the petitioner deserved to get promotion before such promotion could be given to respondent No.3 can perhaps be better appreciated by the tribunal. Thus, in tune with the submission of Mr. Sanyal, I would like to hold that the petitioner should rather approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance in that regard. It is not that the writ application is not maintainable but maintainability and entertainability- are not synonymous. In the best interest of justice and for proper and effective appreciation of such grievances, it is better that the petitioner seeks redress before the tribunal”.

9. The appellant was not satisfied and hence the present appeal.

10. Mr. Mitra appearing for the appellant has very strenuously argued on various points involving his client’s case. Firstly, he says that in terms of the respondent’s own document, i.e, the ‘Seniority List’, as on 01/04/2006, the appellant appears to be senior than the respondent No. 3, both being candidates of Schedule Caste category. Mr. Mitra has very heavily relied on the relevant provisions in the Rules of 1988, which governs the promotion of the appellant as well as the respondent No. 3. He