5th January, 2026

(M/L No.15)

Ct. No.4

(SKB)

M.A.T.767 of 2025

With

CAN 1 of 2025

Ishita Das

Versus

The State of West Bengal and others

Mr. Sharanya Chatterjee,

Mr. Subhajit Barman

… for the appellant/petitioner.

Mr. Baidurya Ghosal,

Mr. Sourav Mukherjee,

Mr. Saikat Mukherjee

… for the respondent-Bank.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

the learned counsel for the respondent/Bank.

2. The appellant was working in the Junior

Management Grade seeking a promotion to the post of Officer Middle Management Scale-II. The promotion is by two modes. One is through a Fast Track Mode which contemplates appraisal of the candidate wherein she is required to get minimum qualifying marks of 60% in the aggregate of three components, namely, Written Test, Interview and Performance of Appraisal

Report (‘PAR’).

3. The appellant/writ petitioner was considered for

grant of promotion under the normal channel.

4. The petitioner subsequently filed the writ petition raising a grievance that her case for promotion to scale 2 be reconsidered under the Fast Track Channel and granted with effect from the date on which she completed 6 years service in scale 1 i.e. on 01.12.2022. The petitioner, however, has been granted promotion under the normal channel on completion of 8 years.

5. The petitioner was seeking year wise break up of marks under the parameter Performance Appraisal Report (PAR). The response to her query under the RTI was made available on 15.03.2023 furnishing year wise break up of marks awarded for PAR. The information supplied reads as follows:

YEAR WISE P.A.R. NUMBER Sl. PAR Year PAR Number

1. 2021-2022 78

2. 2020-2021 60.75

3. 2019-2020 60 4. 2018-2019 50 5. 2017-2018 50

6. The writ petitioner averred in the writ petition that while visiting the official website of the Bank, she came across the breakup of marks for the PAR, which was at variance with PAR Number, supplied to her under the RTI. In support of such submission, the learned advocate has drawn attention to this court towards pages 144, 145, 146, 147 and 187 of the application. He submits that there is a clear discrepancy which is apparent from a bare perusal also of page 187, wherein, the appellant/petitioner has been granted PAR Number 87 by reviewer for the year 2022, whereas in the information supplied under the RTI Act, she has been shown to have obtained PAR Number 78.

7. The learned counsel for the Bank seriously disputes this fact. It is submitted that there is no discrepancy and the Bank has undertaken the petitioner’s assessment in a transparent way. There is no allegation of any mala fide or any extraneous consideration against any person in the process of assessment. There is no procedural infirmity also pointed out.

8. In these circumstances, there is no occasion for the writ court to enter into a reappreciation of the PAR number awarded to the appellant/writ petitioner.

9. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the order of the learned Single Judge, who has dismissed the writ petitioner’s claim by an order dated 27.01.2025 passed in W.P.A.27283 of 2023, order of which is under challenge in the present intra court appeal.

10. We have gone through the relevant rules which specified the modus of appraisal. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out the relevant provision in this regard in the Regional Rural Banks’ (Appointment of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2017.

11. The third schedule contained therein specifies the manner of calculation or assessment to ascertain whether a person will qualify for promotion through the Fast Track Mode. The relevant provision reads as follows:

“(iv) In the case of normal channel;

(a) the minimum qualifying marks shall be

50% in aggregate of written test, interview and performance appraisal reports;

(b) selection of candidates for promotion shall be made from amongst the successful candidates in the feeder grade, in order of their seniority in the feeder grade.

(v) In the case of fact track channel;

(a) the minimum qualifying m