Back
2024 Supreme(Gau) 1652
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OFASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
VIJAY BISHNOI, C.J., N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, JJ.
Assam Gramin Vikash Bank – Appellant
Versus
Jayanta Kumar Dev, Son of Late Chunilai Dev – Respondent
WA 269 of 2023
Decided on : 21-11-2024
For the Appellants :Mr. A. Ganguly, Mr. A. Dhanuka, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. S. Chakraborty, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
The absence of transparent criteria for promotion renders the denial of promotion arbitrary, emphasizing that eligibility does not guarantee promotion without valid justification.
Headnote:
(A) Promotion Process - Selection criteria for promotion from MMG Scale-III to SMG Scale-IV - The learned Single Judge directed the appellants to promote the respondent based on the selection list prepared by the selection board, noting the absence of transparent criteria for denying promotion. The respondent was eligible and ranked 7th in merit, yet not promoted without justification. (Paras 1, 3, 16)
(B) Judicial Review - The discretion of the selection committee is subject to judicial review if it is arbitrary or lacks transparency. The court emphasized that eligibility does not guarantee promotion without valid criteria. (Paras 5, 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
The respondent, serving as MMG Scale-III, was denied promotion despite being eligible and ranked 7th in merit. The selection process lacked clear criteria for promotion, leading to the writ petition.
Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge found the denial of promotion arbitrary due to the absence of fixed criteria and directed the bank to promote the respondent.
Issues: The main issues were the lack of transparent criteria for promotion and the justification for denying the respondent's promotion despite eligibility.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of transparent criteria for promotion rendered the denial arbitrary, emphasizing that eligibility alone does not guarantee promotion.
Result: Writ appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Vijay Bishnoi, C.J.)
1. This writ appeal is filed by the appellants assailing the order dated 20.06.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition, being, WP(C) 2435/2023 whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondent herein and has directed the appellants to give effect to the select list prepared by the selection board based on participation of the respondent and thereafter, issue order of promotion in favour of the respondent promoting him to SMG Scale-IV. It has also been observed that the order of promotion be given effect from the date on which his juniors were promoted to the SMG Scale-IV and the aforesaid exercise shall be carried out expeditiously as possible but not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of that order.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was serving as officer in the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank on the post of MMG Scale-III. The appellant bank initiated promotion process of the officers from MMG Scale-III to SMG Scale-IV and in relation to that a criteria for selection was issued vide letter dated 12.10.2022. The respondent participated in the said selection process for promotion to the next higher grade but he was not promoted. As per the respondent, he enquired from the bank but no satisfactory explanation for not granting him promotion to the next higher post was provided and therefore, he was forced to approach the writ court.
3. The learned Single Judge, after having considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, has allowed the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondent by passing the impugned order. The relevant extract of the impugned order is reproduced hereunder;-
“I have considered the submissions advanced at the bar and have also gone through the materials available on record. There is no dispute about the fact that the writ petitioner herein is presently serving as MMG Scale-III officer in the Bank and he is eligible for being considered for promotion to the next higher grade of MMG Scale-IV. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had participated in the selection process and had emerged as the 7th candidate in order of merit. The candidates at Sl. No. 1 to 5 have already been promoted. Respondent have, however, not given any reason as to why the other candidates who had participated in the selection process were not promoted.
Record produced by Mr. Ganguly reveals that there was no cutoff mark fixed for consideration of the candidature of the officers who had appeared before the Selection Board. As a matter of fact, Rules of 2017 also do not permit fixation of any such cutoff mark for promotion from MMG Scale-III to MMG Scale-IV. A careful examination of the departmental records also goes to show that the Selection Board had not fixed any criteria based on which, candidates scoring marks below a particular level could be denied promotion. If that be so, the above action on the part of the respondents, in denying promotion to the petitioner herein, without applying any transparent and reasonable criteria, on the face of the record, appears to be arbitrary. If the petitioner is due for retirement w.e.f. 30-06-2023, then it is also apparent that he would not have any opportunity of being promoted to the post of MMG Scale-IV ever again, during the service career.
Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has succeeded in making out a good case for interference by this Court, where a writ of mandamus can be issued to the respondent. As such, this writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.”
4. We have already taken note of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition.
5. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the learned Single Judge has grossly erred in allowing the writ petition without considering the fact that the respondent and ot
