1995 Supreme(Raj) 1039
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
V.K.Singhal, J.
Amar Singh Choudhary & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
U.C.O. Bank and others - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 5955/90; 3516/91; 3517/91; 3518/91; 6752/91.
Decided On : 5-10-1995
A bank's revised promotion policy, which was framed in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and provided for a relaxation of the minimum length of service if the number of officers becoming eligible for promotion was less than 3 times the number of posts available in the next higher scale/grade, was not arbitrary or discriminatory.
Headnote:
PROMOTION POLICY - UCO BANK OFFICERS SERVICE REGULATIONS, 1979 - REGULATION 17 - REVISED PROMOTION POLICY - VALIDITY - CHALLENGE - ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA - RELAXATION - SENIORITY MARKS - CALCULATION - CUT-OFF DATE - REVISED POLICY - ACCEPTANCE BY EMPLOYEES - SUBSEQUENT CHALLENGE - MAINTAINABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, bank employees, challenged the revised promotion policy of the bank, claiming that it was arbitrary and discriminatory. They argued that the cut-off date for determining eligibility for promotion was shifted from 31.12.1986 to 31.10.1987, while the marks for seniority, qualification, and performance for promotion were taken as on 31.12.1986. They also claimed that they were entitled to 35 marks in the head of seniority on the basis of completion of 7 years in Junior Management Gr. I on the date of eligibility, 31.10.1987.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the revised promotion policy was valid and that the petitioners were not justified in attacking the formula of fixing the marks for seniority as on 31.12.1986 and considering the eligibility as on 31.10.1987. The court also held that the petitioners, having appeared in the test on the basis of the agreed formula, could not be permitted to raise the dispute.
Issues: 1. Whether the revised promotion policy of the bank was arbitrary and discriminatory? 2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to 35 marks in the head of seniority on the basis of completion of 7 years in Junior Management Gr. I on the date of eligibility, 31.10.1987? 3. Whether the petitioners, having appeared in the test on the basis of the agreed formula, could be permitted to raise the dispute?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the revised promotion policy was not arbitrary or discriminatory. The court noted that the bank had the power to frame regulations under section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and transfer of undertakings) Act, 1990, and that the regulations were framed in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India. 2. The court held that the petitioners were not entitled to 35 marks in the head of seniority on the basis of completion of 7 years in Junior Management Gr. I on the date of eligibility, 31.10.1987. The court noted that the promotion policy provided for a relaxation of the minimum length of service if the number of officers becoming eligible for promotion was less than 3 times the number of posts available in the next higher scale/grade. 3. The court held that the petitioners, having appeared in the test on the basis of the agreed formula, could not be permitted to raise the dispute. The court noted that the Apex Court had held in D.E Shukla v. V.E Shukla that where the petitioner has appeared in the competitive examination without protest, no relief should be given to him under Art. 226 when the validity of examination is challenged thereafter he was declared un-successful.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed.
JUDGMENT
1. - The controversy in the present writ petition is with regard to the promotion of the bank employees. A prayer is made that the revised promotion policy dated 11.12.1987 be declared as illegal and selection for promotion by which the junior management Grade I to Middle Management Gr. 11 as contained in the circular dated 8.9.1988 and circular dated 27.4.1990 be quashed. It is prayed that the petitioner be promoted as Officer Middle Management Gr. I in accordance with that policy and further be directed to award 35 marks in the head of seniority on the basis of completion of 7 years in junior management Gr. I on the date of eligibility 31.10.1987. The promotion policy dated 5.10.1990 has been prayed to be quashed.
2. The facts as have been stated in the writ petition of Suresh Kashyap are that he was initially appointed as Clerk cum Typist on 10.7.1973 and thereafter promoted to the post of Junior Manager on 1.7.1980 and thereafter on the post of Junior Manager Gr. I. The salaries were revised on 12.12.1985.
3. The bank issued a declaration of 680 vacancies of Scale II and its promotion policy on 8.10.1987 as reproduced. in the writ petition. The revised declaration of vacancies was issued on 11.12.1987 for filling up the vacancies of Scale I and the cut off date for determining the eligibility of promotion was shifted from 31.12.1986 to 31.8.1987. The marks for seniority, qualification and performance for promotion were to be determined as on 31.12.1986 and the panel for promotion of Scale II, III and IV was considered to be valid till 31.12.1988. This promotion policy was further revised and 775 vacancies were declared to be filled in by way of promotion from the officers of Scale II in the officers of Scale III. The policy of the bank was declared subject to the provisions of Regulation 17 of the UCO Bank (Officer's) Service Regulation 1979, according to which the promotion of all grades of officers in the Bank shall be made in accordance with the policy laid down by the Board from time to time in regard to the guidelines of the Government of India from time to time. Regulation 17 of the UCO Bank (Officer's) Service Regulation and Guidelines have also been reproduced in the writ petition. A revised promotion policy circular dated 11.12.1987 was issued in which the cut off date for eligibility of promotion was shifted from 31.12.1986 to 31:10.1987 while the marks for seniority, qualification and performance for promotion has been taken as on 31.12.1986. According to the said scheme five marks for each year of service in Scale I towards seniority are to be considered. The grievance 'of the petitioner is that the marks towards seniority as on 31.12.1986 is not justified. The performance appraisal in the year 1987 were also alleged to be arbitrary The petitioner in interview has obtained 60 -marks out of which 30 marks were awarded in the head of seniority and he has not been promoted in Gr. II as the last promotee-was having 71 marks. The result was declared vide circular dated 8.9.1988. An appeal was preferred to the appellate authority which was not accepted. The grievance is that the junior persons were promoted on the post of officer Middle Management Gr. Scale II while they have secured 67 and 68 marks.
4. In Suresh Kashyap's writ petition, the question involved for promotion from Gr. Ito Gr. II and in respect of others the promotion is form Gr. II to Gr. 111.
5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that when the cut off date for determining of eligibility has been shifted from 31.12.1986 to 31.10.1987, restricting the marks in respect of qualification and promotion on 31.12.1986 is arbitrary, Reliance has been placed on a decision of Madhav Anai Koparkar v. U.C.O. Bank, Writ Petition No. 98/91 decided-by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 7.1.1991 where the dispute was with regard to the educational qualification acquired after 31.12.1986 but before 31.10.1987 and marks were not given. The
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
