G. Koteswara Rao and others vs Chaitanya Grameena Bank, Tenali, Guntur Dist. and others

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.—The dissatisfied respondents, namely respondent Nos.5. 11, 12 and 17 in W.P.No. 10500 of 1995, are the appellants in this writ appeal. The parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petition. The petitioners and the unofficial respondents were selected for appointment to the post of Branch Manager by the Selection Committee of the Grameena Bank and a list on the basis of the merit was prepared on 1-4-1991. It appears, the petitioners did not join the service immediately on their appointment, but joined long after the other managers reported to duty. A common seniority list was prepared in the year 1991 on the basis of the ranking assigned to them in the Selection Committee; but later, on the representation of those who joined earlier, unofficial respondents, the seniority list was altered and those who joined earlier in point of time were ranked in accordance with the merit list, but those who joined subsequently were placed below the contesting respondents. Aggrieved by the second list, the petitioners filed a representation and as no relief was granted by the Grameena Bank, they filed the writ petition challenging the common seniority list prepared in the year 1995.

The learned single Judge who dealt with this case, allowed the writ petition on 11-7-1997, taking the view that preparation of the seniority list on the basis of the date of joining is incorrect. He also directed that promotions made on the basis of the 1995 seniority list be reviewed. It is the correctness of that order, that is assailed in this writ appeal.

Sri G. Dharma Rao, the learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently contends that having regard to Rule 13 of the Chaitanya Grameena Bank Staff Service Regulations, 1983, the learned single Judge ought not to have disturbed the seniority list. Sri M. Panduranga Rao, the learned Counsel for the contesting respondents, submits that the Supreme Court has laid down in the case of the very same Bank that the date of reporting to duty is not the criteria for preparation of seniority list.

The short question that arises for consideration is whether the order of the learned single Judge under appeal warrants interference.

To appreciate the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be useful to read here Rule 33 of the above said Rules:

"13(1) (a) Seniority of an officer or employee of the Bank in a grade or scale shall be reckoned with reference to the date of his appointment in that grade or scale.

(b) Where there are two or more officers of the same length of service in that grade or scale, their inter se seniority shall be reckoned with reference to their seniority in the immediately preceding grade or scale or the previous cadre to which they belong in the Bank''s service.

(3) Where there arc two or more officers of the same length of service of such grade or scale or such previous cadre their seniority shall be determined with reference to their seniority in the immediately preceding grade or scale or cadre; as the case may be:

Provided that the inter-seniority of the Field Officers or Accountants vis-a-vis the Branch Managers, who were in the service of the Bank on Finance. Department of Economic Affairs, Banking Division letter No. 2-17-79 PRB dated 29th April, 1980 are adopted by the Bank, may be so reckoned that all Field Officers or Accountants may rank junior to their existing Branch Managers.

(2) The inter se seniority of officers or employees directly recruited in a batch to any grade or scale shall be reckoned with reference to the rank allotted to them at the time of such recruitment.

(3) In the case of an officer or employee whose probation has been extended, his seniority shall be reckoned just below all the officers or employees, if any, recruited or promoted in the same batch along with him,"

A perusal of sub-rule (1) (a) and sub-rule (2) of Rule 13 makes it abundantly clear that the seniority of an officer or employee of the Bank in any grade or scale has to be reckoned with reference to the date of his appointment in that grade or scale; where number of officers are employed by direct recruitment, their inter se-seniority in a batch to any grade or scale will have to be reckoned with reference to the ranks allotted at the time of such recruitment. Admittedly, in this case, the recruitment was made in accordance with the selection list prepared on the basis of merit. Therefore, the preparation of seniority on any basis other than the ranking in the selection list will be contrary to the Rules. In Chairman, Puri Gramya Bank and Another Vs. Ananda Chandra Das and Others, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as follows: "The only question in this case is that what shall be the ranking among the direct recruits? Is it the date on which they joined duty or according to the ranking given by the Selection Board? On comparative evaluation of the respective merits of the candidates for direct recruitment, the Board had prepared the merit list on the basis of the ranking secured at the time of selection. It is settled law that if more than one are selected, the seniority is as per ranking of the direct recruits subject to the adjustment of the candidates selected on applying the rule of reservation and the roster. By mere fortuitous chance of reporting to duty earlier would not alter the ranking given by the Selection Board and the arranged one as per roster. The High Court is. therefore, wholly wrong in its conclusion that the seniority shall be determined on the basis of the joining reports given by the candidates selected for appointment by direct recruitment and length of service on its basis. The view, therefore, is wrong." 6. For the above reasons, we find no illegality in the order of the learned single Judge. The writ appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.