Back
2024 Supreme(Ker) 883
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JJ.
M.P. JANARDHANAN - Appellant
Versus
The South Malabar Gramin Bank (Now Renamed As Kerala Gramin Bank), Rep By Its Chairman and Ors. – Respondents
W.A.Nos.648, 659 and 1669 Of 2014
Decided On : 30-08-2024
For the Appellant : Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj.
For the Respondents: Sri. M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, Sri. K. John Mathai, Sri. Joson Manavalan, Sri. Kuryan Thomas, Sri. Paulose C. Abraham, Sri. Raja Kannan, Smt. Parvathy Kottol, Sri. V.R. Kesava Kaimal.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that promotion based on seniority-cum-merit can include minimum qualifying marks without violating constitutional rights.
Headnote:
Promotion - Officers Scale II - Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Other Employees) Rules, 1998 - The court upheld the legality of the promotion criteria based on seniority-cum-merit, emphasizing the importance of minimum qualifying marks and the non-violation of constitutional rights.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants challenged the legality of select lists for promotion to Scale II officers in the South Malabar Gramin Bank, claiming violations of the Regional Rural Banks Rules and constitutional rights due to the promotion criteria.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the promotion criteria, including a minimum qualifying mark of 59 out of 100, did not violate the principles of seniority-cum-merit and upheld the legality of the selection process.
Issues: Whether the promotion criteria for Scale II officers violated the Regional Rural Banks Rules and constitutional rights of the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the promotion process based on seniority-cum-merit, with a minimum qualifying benchmark, is lawful and does not infringe upon the appellants' rights.
Result: The appeals are dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(P.G. Ajithkumar, J.) :
These appeals arose on a common judgment dated 19.11.2013. W.P.(C) Nos.28428 of 2009, 13907 of 2010 and 12257 of 2011 together with two other writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge as per the said judgment. The common issue raised was that the select lists prepared for promotion to the post of officers scale II in the South Malabar Gramin Bank were illegal and violative of the provisions of Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Other Employees) Rules, 1998 (Rules) and also violative Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The respective appellants who could not get through the process for promotion and suffered dismissal of their writ petitions preferred these appeals invoking the provisions of Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Standing Counsel for the South Malabar Gramin Bank and the contesting respondents.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the South Malabar Gramin Bank would submit that the appellants had already retired from service and therefore the cause of action did not survive. But the learned counsel for the appellants wants these matters decided on merits for, the result of the litigation has an effect on the service and service benefits of the appellants.
4. Relevant part of the Rules which contain the criteria for promotion to the post of scale II officers. It reads thus:
| “2. (a) Name of post | : Scale II Officer. |
| (b) Classification | : Group “A” |
| (c) Source of appointment | : 100% by promotion |
| (d) Whether promotion to be made on seniority basis or seniority cum merit basis | : Promotion shall be made on the basis of seniority cum merit |
| (e) eligibility | : Officers holding post for eight years as an officer on regular basis in the Regional Rural Bank shall be considered for promotion in scale II post in that bank: Provided that no officer shall be considered for promotion unless he has been confirmed in the feeder grade post: Provided further that the Board may, with the prior approval of National Bank, relax the qualifying service for a period not exceeding two years, if eligible officers are not available. |
| xx | Xx |
| (j) Selection process for promotion | : The selection shall be on the basis of performance in the written test, interview and Performance Appraisal Reports for preceding five years as per the division of marks given below. |
| Xx | Xx |
|
| : A list of only those candidates who secure a minimum of 40% marks in each part shall be prepared and such candidates shall be called for interview |
| Xx | Xx |
| (B) Interview (20 marks) | : There shall be no minimum qualifying marks for the interview |
| (c) Performance Appraisal Reports (20 marks) | : Performance Appraisal Reports for the preceding five years shall be considered for the purpose of awarding marks for promotion.” |
5. The notification dated 05.05.2009 inviting applications for promotion further prescribed that written test carries 60 marks, interview carries 20 marks and performance appraisal carries 20 marks. The aspirants should obtain 59 marks out of the total 100 marks in order to qualify. The written examination, interview and scrutiny of other parameters were conducted and the select lists were published. The appellants alleging that prescription of a minimum marks of 40% for the written examination and subsequently a benchmark for qualifying for promotion are illegal and violative of the law laid down by the Apex Court in B.V.Sivaiah v. K.Addanki Babu [(1998) 6 SCC 720] and also Union of India v. Lt.Gen Rajendra Sing Kadyan [(2000) 6 SCC 698].
6. The learned counsel would submit that the respective select lists are illegal and liable to be set aside, but the learned single Judge proceeded in a wrong tangent in order to hold that there was no violation of the principle of seniority cum merit
