Back
2024 Supreme(Telangana) 338
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
Rekha Neypally - Petitioner
Versus
Union Bank of India & Others - Respondents
W.P. No. 40079 of 2018
Decided On : 03-06-2024
For the Petitioner: Sri V. Hari Haran.
For the Respondents: Sri G.V.S. Ganesh., Dy. Solicitor General of India.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that administrative actions must adhere to principles of equality and fairness, as mandated by Article 14 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
Promotion - Writ of Mandamus - Article 14 - The court discussed the arbitrary nature of promotion relaxations and the necessity for adherence to established promotion policies, emphasizing the importance of equality and fairness in administrative actions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus against the respondent bank for arbitrary relaxations in promotion eligibility, claiming violations of Article 14 of the Constitution and the bank's promotion policy, while also having filed a civil suit on similar grounds.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had not exhausted alternative remedies and had participated in the promotion processes, thus dismissing the writ petition but directing the bank to consider the petitioner's promotion case in accordance with its policy.
Issues: Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the parallel civil suit and the alleged delay in filing, and whether the respondent bank's actions were arbitrary and violated the promotion policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a party cannot pursue parallel remedies and that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary, emphasizing the need for timely action in promotion disputes.
Result: The writ petition is disposed of with directions to the bank to consider the petitioner's promotion case as per policy within four weeks.
ORDER :
Surepalli Nanda, J.
Heard the learned Senior Designate counsel Sri V. Hari Haran, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel Sri G.V.S. Ganesh, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3, and the learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent.
2. The petitioner approached the court seeking prayer as under :
“.....to issue Writ, Order or Direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Bank in according relaxations for eligibility in the promotion process from the cadre of SMGV IV to SMGS V for the years between 2019-2020 initiated pursuant to staff circular dated 17.12.2018, 2017-2018, 2016-2017, 2015-2016, 2013-2014 vide Staff Circular No. 6506 dated 19-12-2016, No. 6511 dated 23-12-2016, Staff circular no: 6314 dated 11.02.2016 Staff Circular No. 6360 dated 10-05-2016, vide Staff circular no: 5966 dated 25-04-2013, 5969 dated 02.05.2013, No.5794 and 5796 dated 09-05-2013, and for the respective years as being arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Article 14 of Constitution of India and contrary to the guidelines of the Fourth Respondent and consequently direct the Respondent Bank to accord promotion to the Petitioner in accordance with the Promotion Policy of the Bank and pass such other consequential reliefs.....”
3. PERUSED THE RECORD :
(A) Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3, in particular, paragraph Nos.2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 13, read as under :
(2) I am advised to submit that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold itself without even entering into the merits of the case at all inasmuch as admittedly:-
(1) The Writ Petitioner herself states in Para-7 has filed a Suit being O.S. No. 404 of 2018 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, at Hyderabad, which is pending consideration and Annexure-P.14 at Pages 152 onwards seeks, inter-alia, the following relief/Prayer at Page-177:-
"(c) Consequently, direct the First Defendant to promote the Plaintiff to the cadre of Scale V Officer with effect from the year 2014 along with all consequential benefits, monetary benefits and subsequent promotion posts as per the Promotion Policy of the First Defendant and Union Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 by setting aside the said Orders of punishment."
(ii) In fact, narration of facts in the Plaint also very clearly point to the very same grievances that she has against the Respondent Bank and the relief sought in the main Writ Petition reads as follows:-
"....Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Bank in according relaxations for eligibility in the promotion process from the cadre of SMGV IV to SMGS V for the years between 2019-2020 initiated pursuant to staff circular dated 17.12.2018, 2017-2018, 2016-2017, 2015-2016, 2013-2014 vide Staff Circular No. 6506 dated 19-12-2016, No. 6511 dated 23-12-2016, Staff Circular No: 6314 dated 11/02/2016 Staff Circular No. 6360 dated 10/05/2016, vide Staff Circular No. 5966 dated 25/04/2013, 5969 dated 02/05/2013, No. 5794 and 5796 dated 09/05/2013, and for the respective years as being arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the guidelines of the Fourth Respondent and consequently direct the Respondent Bank to accord promotion to the Petitioner in accordance with the Promotion Policy of the Bank....."
(3) It is thus self evident that the Writ Petitioner is seeking parallel remedies, one before the Civil Court and the other before this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(6) I am fortified by a Division Bench ruling of the AP High Court in the case of Procter and Gamble India Ltd Vs. Union of India reported in 1994 (69) ELT 442 and particularly at Paragraphs 22 to 33 completely discuss the case-law obtaining on such a point of law, rejecting the Writ Petition, particularly holding that a party cannot be permitted to pr
