Selection Committees must not use sealed cover procedures for promotion unless formal charges are framed against an employee, preserving rights to promotion.

JUDGMENT :

SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.

Heard Mr. Dilip Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd. representing respondents No. 1, 2 and 3.

2. The private respondents are not represented, although by order dated 01.03.2024, this Court directed to take steps for service of notice on respondent Nos.4 to 8 and 10 to 21 by publishing the notice in two local daily newspapers having wide circulation in the State of Assam (one in English and one in vernacular). The respondent No.9 is shown to be represented by Mr. J. Barman, learned counsel. As per Office Note dated 02.05.2024, it appears that the respondents No. 4 to 8, 10 to 14, 17 and 19 to 21 were represented by the learned counsel. Subsequently, by Office Note dated 16.07.2024, it is reflected that respondent Nos.9, 16 and 18 were also represented by counsel. Accordingly, all the respondents were represented by the learned counsel.

3. The petitioner is serving as Assistant Branch Manager under the respondent bank. The petitioner was initially appointed as Probationary Officer in the respondent Bank on 16.12.2010. While the petitioner was serving in that capacity, the bank authorities proceeded to consider the officers similarly situated like the petitioner for promotion to the next higher Grade D. According to the petitioner, he was placed at a higher position in the seniority list which was published by the bank for the Grade of Assistant Manager/Assistant Branch Manager according to their date of birth. In the said list, the petitioner is placed in the third position. Thereafter, the Selection Committee proceeded to consider the cases of the petitioner and the private respondents. Subsequently, by order dated 05.07.2021, the private respondents were promoted to the next higher rank overlooking the claim of the petitioner.

4. By the present proceedings the impugned order dated 05.07.2021 the petitioner has assailed the promotion of the private respondents to the next higher post overlooking the claim of the petitioner. There are however, two orders passed on 05.07.2021 whereby, officers were promoted in two different sets and in none of the orders, the name of the petitioner figured. The petitioner represented before the authorities concerned but the same was not responded to. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondent authorities to consider his case for promoting him to the next higher post with all service benefits including seniority.

5. The respondent bank has contested the writ petition by filing an affidavit. The learned counsel for the bank submits that on the day when the Selection Committee meeting was conducted for promotion of the candidates including the petitioner, the petitioner and two other officers were not considered, in view of contemplated departmental proceedings and accordingly, their cases were kept under sealed cover. It is submitted that since the petitioner's case was kept under sealed cover, his case was not considered, the private respondents’ cases were considered and promotion orders accordingly were issued.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the date when the committee had evaluated the cases of the candidates including the petitioner, there was no departmental proceedings initiated nor was