The main legal point established is that the authority to fix minimum qualifying benchmarks for promotion lies with the Central Government, and such fixation without legal sanction is impermissible.

Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral)

We have heard petitioner appearing in person and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank.

2. Petitioner was in Scale II on 4th March, 2005. On the same date, exercise for giving promotion from Scale II to Scale III was initiated. Petitioner, upon completion of such exercise, was not promoted instead his juniors were promoted. In course of the promotional exercise, petitioner was interviewed. Petitioner contended that non-grant of promotion to the petitioner on completion of promotional exercise and instead giving promotion to his juniors, is not sustainable in law. In order to vindicate his such contention, petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3. In the counter affidavit, it was contended that the Board of Directors of the Bank, on 3rd March, 2005 resolved to fix a minimum qualifying benchmark for Performance Appraisal Reports, and that, since the petitioner did not get that qualifying benchmark, he was not promoted. The minutes of the Board’s meeting held on 3rd March, 2005 was not annexed to the counter affidavit, nor it was stated in the counter affidavit what was the minimum qualifying benchmark fixed for Performance Appraisal Reports. At the hearing, learned counsel for the Bank produced a copy of the said minutes, which is kept as a part of the records of this writ petition.

4. From the said minutes, it appears that the Board of the Bank had fixed 60 marks as the minimum qualifying benchmark for Performance Appraisal Reports and also fixed 60 marks as the minimum qualifying benchmark overall. In other words, an officer could be deemed to be qualified provided he has got 60 marks in Performance Appraisal Reports, and if he has got the same, it shall be deemed that the said officer has obtained the minimum qualifying benchmark. This was purportedly done on the advice given by NABARD on 23rd December, 2004 to Ganga-Yamuna Gramin Bank purportedly on the basis of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in B.V. Sivaiah and others versus K. Addanki Babu and others, reported in (1998) 6 SCC 720, and in Union of India versus Rajendra Singh, 2000 (6) SCC 698. The signatory of the said letter of NABARD is Assistant General Manager of NABARD. The same was written in response to a letter of Ganga-Yamuna Gramin Bank addressed to the Sponsor Bank. The said letter, therefore, cannot be treated as a letter written by NABARD to the respondent Bank, though a copy thereof was forwarded to the respondent bank, and at the same time, the same cannot be treated as a circular letter of NABARD circulated to banks similarly situated to that of the respondent Bank. Even assuming the said letter was an advisory letter, the question is whether, in law, the respondent Bank could act on the basis of the said advice. In other words, whether, in law, the respondent Bank could do what it did by fixing a minimum qualifying benchmark for Performance Appraisal Reports.

5. On 9th February, 1976, the Union Legislature made the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 to provide for the incorporation, regulation and winding-up of Regional Rural Banks with a view to developing the rural economy by providing for the purpose of development of agriculture, trade, commerce, industry and other productive activities in the rural areas, credit and other facilities, particularly to the small and marginal farmers, agricultural labourers, artisans and small entrepreneurs and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. The said Act, in accordance with the mandate contained in Sub Section (3) of Section 1 thereof, came into force on 26th September, 1975. Respondent Bank is one of those Regional Rural Banks which has been incorporated/constituted by and under the said Act. Section 17 of the said Act provides, amongst others, that the Regional Rural Banks may appoint such number of officers and other employees as it may consider necessary or desirable in such manner as may be prescribed for