The promotion criteria must adhere to the principle of seniority-cum-merit as prescribed under the Rules of 1998, and the non-inclusion of all affected parties does not render a petition unsustainable if the challenge is to the principle of placement in the gradation list.

JUDGMENT

This order shall also govern the disposal of W. P. No. 2025/08(s), W. P. No. 5105/08(s), W. P. No. 2687/08(s), W. P. No. 5478/08(s) and W. P. No. 2616/10(s).

2. Because all the petitions are connected and common question has been involved in all the petitions, hence the petitions have been heard together finally and decided by this common order. The facts mentioned in W. P. No. 2025/2008(8) have been taken into consideration for passing the common order.

3. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order Annexure P-1 dated 5-3-2008 by which the respondent No. 1 promoted near about 57 officers from the post of JMGS-I to MM Scale II.

4. As per the petitioner in issuing the promotion order Annexure P-1 the respondents No. 1 and 2 have not followed the provisions of Regional Rural Bank (Appointment and Promotions of Officers and Other Employees) Rules, 1998, hence the promotions are contrary to the rules.

5. The respondent No. 2-Bank is constituted under the provisions of Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976 (hereinafter called as "Act of 1976"). In exercise of powers conferred under section 17 read with section 29 of the Act of 1976, the Central Government framed rules in regard to appointment, promotion and discipline of the employees of the respondent No. 2-Bank. These Rules have been named as Regional Rural Bank (Appointment and Promotions of Officers and Other Employees) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1998')- Rule 6 prescribes that the Board of Directors of the Bank shall fill up the vacancies in accordance with the provisions of IIIrd Schedule by promotion or direct recruitment. IIIrd Schedule prescribes procedure for promotion. As per IIIrd Schedule (2), the promotion of scale-II officers has been prescribed. The criteria for promotion is seniority-cum-merit. The relevant provisions of the Rules which are in Hindi are as under :-

XXX XXX XXX

6. The Board of Management of respondent. No. 3 in the meeting held on 29-10-2007 fixed the requirement for promotion of an employee from JMGS-I to MM II scale and according to the aforesaid criteria an employee who has secured 40% marks in written test was called for interview and thereafter if an employee secured 70% marks in aggregate in written test interview and in annual confidence report, which was reduced to 65%, has been held eligible for promotion. The relevant pleadings in the return to this effect are as under:-

"The candidates who are eligible to participate in the process of promotion from JMGS I to MM II Scale were required to secure 40% marks in the written test and they are required to secure 70% marks in aggregate in written test, interview and in annual confidential reports for five years those who secure 70% marks in aggregate shall be held eligible for promotions. Since the promotion policy is seniority cum merit hence the candidates who shall secure 70% marks shall be given promotion in order of seniority. Thus, even though the junior has secured more than 70% marks in aggregate yet senior persons shall be given preference over the meritorious junior. Copy of the Board Resolution is filed as Annexure R/2. As the candidate who qualified for interview had secured less marks in written test it was anticipated that the number of candidates securing 70% out of 100 in aggregate may be less than the number of vacancies hence the Board of Directors of respondent-Bank reduced the cut off minimum marks in aggregate from 70% to 65%. Copy of resolution passed at the Board meeting held on 5-3-2008 is filed as Annexure R/3."

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the criteria fixed by the Board of Directors of the Bank for promotion from JMGS-I to MM II Scale is arbitrary and against the principle of seniority-cum-merit and it is also against the statutory provisions of Rules, 1998 and the IIIrd Schedule. In support of his contentions the learned counsel has relied on the following judgments :-

(i) (1976) 2 SCC 310, State of Kerala and