211 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 20.02.2025 UCO Bank …Appellant Vs.

Hardayal Sidhu and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Present: Mr. V.K. Kataria, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. P.S. Bajwa, Advocate for the respondents.

***

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral)

1. Heard learned counsel at length for the respective parties.

2. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 28.08.2017, whereby it allowed the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner in the year 1998, challenging the promotion granted to the respondents.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-bank submits that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is against the law and facts and contrary to the settled principles of statutory interpretation as well as the Promotion Policy Settlement for Workman Staff and is, therefore, unsustainable in the eyes of law.

4. The Promotion Policy Settlement was arrived at between the recognized unions and the management of the bank, which came into force in

1988 and officers were to be promoted from clerical cadre under merit-cum- seniority channel based on marks obtained by the candidate in the written test. As per Clause 3.6.1 Note-3 of the Settlement, the candidates who passed the test would be ranked on the basis of marks obtained in the written test. On the basis of said ranking list, those shall rank within three times of the number of vacancies declared by the bank, cannot be considered for promotion and merit would be prepared on the basis of aggregate marks of such candidates secured in written test, service and qualification. Candidates who secured same number of marks, would be ranked on the basis of their inter se seniority and they would be empanelled and declared promoted. It is submitted that the list of successful candidates was finalized accordingly. It is his submission that as the writ petitioners could not fall within the ambit of three times the number of vacancies, on the basis of their written marks, they were ousted from consideration for promotion. It is an admitted position that the marks obtained by the writ petitioners were 18 or less out of the maximum 55 marks in the interview. It is submitted that although the total aggregate marks of the writ petitioners were higher (which included written test, service and qualification), they could not be promoted as they did not fall within the zone of consideration for promotion.

5. Learned counsel submits that the writ petitioner having appeared in the written examination and knowing fully well that he has fallen beyond the three times number, has challenged the said Note-3 appended to Rule 3.6.1 of the Promotion Policy, which he could not have done as after he had participated in the selection process, he could not have turned around and challenged the conditions laid down for promotion. Learned counsel points out that the judgments were cited with regard to the said aspect before the learned Single Judge and has also taken us through the said judgments to submit that a person cannot be allowed to challenge conditions through which a candidate participates for promotion process after he has found himself to be ousted under those conditions.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken this Court to the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge to point out that while the learned Single Judge has made certain observations relating to the Note, Note-3 has not been struck down, in spite thereto, the writ petitioner has been directed to be placed appropriately in the select list and to promote him to the post of Junior Management Grade Scale-I from the date his juniors were promoted and to give him all consequential benefits.

7. Learned counsel submits that the writ petitioner had been subsequently promoted on 20.02.2001 as Junior Management Grade Scale-I, he, therefore, would not be entitled