Balia-Etawah Gramin Bank Employees Association vs Union of India and others

We have heard Sri B.B. Paul and Sri Anil Kumar Sharma for the petitioner. Sri Y.K. Sinha along with Sri G.P. Srivastava appears for the respondents. The petitioner claims to be Employees'' Association of Ballia- Etawah Gramin Bank, with its Central Office at 39, Kuncha Sheelchandra, District Eawah, represented by its General Secretary, Sri Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi. The Association has prayed for quashing the notification/circular dated 1.8.2011, issued by the Chairman of the Ballia-Etawah Gramin Bank, Ballia (hereinafter called as the ''Bank'') to all its Branches, Regional Offices, Departments and Head Office, with reference to procedure of promotion in all the cadres, to the effect, in view of the judgment of the Kerala High Court dated 10.4.2011, the fixation of minimum bench mark in the interviews for unreserved categories shall be 50 % and 45 % for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes candidates.

The impugned notification/circular has been issued during the pendency of selection proceedings for promotions from the post of Junior Management Grade Scale-I (JMGS) to Middle Management Grade Scale-II (MMGS), and from Clerical Cadre to JMGS-I, in which 64 JMGS-I and 104 Clerical Cadre officers/employees have been declared successful.

The petitioner has challenged the notification/circular dated 1.8.2011, on the ground that, it is illegal and contrary to the rules for selections by way of promotion to different post. According to the declared policy of promotions under the Statutory Rules dated 29.7.1998, namely, Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Other Employees) Rules 1998, the procedure for selection could not be changed mid-stream. The Third Schedule to Rules of 1998, provided that the candidates, who secure minimum 40 % in the written test be called for interviews, but no minimum qualifying marks in the interviews have been provided. The general principle of ''seniority-cum-merit'' has been breached in prescribing the qualifying minimum marks in the interviews, converting the selection to be based on merit, without giving emphasis to the seniority.

A preliminary objection has been taken by the respondent Bank in the counter affidavit to the maintainability of the writ petition at the instance of an employees association. It is submitted by Sri Y.K. Sinha, that the selection process for promotion in the bank is still pending. The circular issued by the Bank enforcing condition of securing minimum 50 % marks in the written examination, has not been made applicable to the subject selection. In para 13 of the counter of Sri A.K. Singh, Senior Manager, Establishment, Ballia-Gramin Bank, Head Office, Ballia, it is stated that the candidates, who secure 40 % marks in the written test have been called for interviews.

It is stated in the counter affidavit that although the revised criteria has not been made applicable in the subject process for promotion, a writ petition by employees'' association, is not maintainable both on the ground that the association has not filed its registration, and its recognition by the Bank and also on the ground that the association has not annexed the resolution challenging the impugned notification/circular dated 1.8.2011, issued by respondent No. 3, nor has given the list of its members, who have appeared in the selection, or interest in the reliefs claimed by the association.

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi, representing the petitioner Association has also filed a writ petition No. 21633 of 2011 in his individual capacity, claiming almost the same reliefs. He has challenged the notification dated 10.2.2011, issued by respondent No. 3 on the ground that it is contrary to the Rules of 1998. The writ petition filed by him was subsequently amended, and that a relief for quashing the impugned order dated 1.8.2011, was added to the prayers made in the writ petition.

Every employees of the Bank is entitled to be considered for promotion in accordance with the statutory rules. The cause of action in such case is individual, and that Sri Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi having appeared in the written test is also pursuing his remedies in writ petition No. 21663 of 2011, he is not entitled to file a separate writ petition, claiming himself to be the General Secretary of the employees'' association, without giving details of the registration, recognition of the Association and the list of its members.

In B. Srinivasa Reddy Vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees'' Association and Others, , the question of filing a writ petition by Association, challenging the appointment of Managing Director was dismissed by the Supreme Court following the view taken by the Supreme Court in People''s Union for Democratic Rights and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, ; D.S. Nakara and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI), and S.P. Gupta Vs. President of India and Others, in which it was held that a writ petition by an association may be maintainable where its members on account of poverty, helplessness, disability social or economic disadvantaged position, are unable to approach the Court, individually.

Even otherwise, a writ of certiorari is not maintainable at the instance of an association for its members, unless it is shown that individual members are unable to approach individually, for legal remedies. Where individual members are unable to file a writ petition, they may authorise their association by a resolution, to protect their legal rights. In such case also, the Association must have its own constitution; a clearly defined membership, which has authorized their association, to file the writ petition on their behalf. These conditions for maintaining the legal action have to be strictly observed, as in case of any decision, the entire body/members of the Association will be bound by the decision of the Court.

In this case, after having approached the High Court for individual relief, this writ petition filed by the Employees Association through the same person namely Sri Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi, without giving details of the registration and recognition of the Association, as well as its membership, is not maintainable.

We thus uphold the preliminary objections of the counsel for respondent Bank that in the facts of the given case, in which proceedings of promotion are in mid-way, neither the candidates, who have appeared in the written examination, nor their association has any cause of action, to challenge the change of criteria. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.