AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
When the matter is called out neither counsel for the appellant nor counsel for the respondents is present.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this appellant is the original petitioner whose writ petition being W.P.(S) No.3360
of 2005 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 29.06.2011, and thereby the claim of this appellant (original
petitioner) for getting promotion on the post of officer was not accepted by the learned Single Judge, and hence, the original petitioner has preferred
the present Letters Patent Appeal.
It further appears from the facts of the case that criteria fixed for giving promotion was “seniority-cummeritâ€.
Thus, it appears that seniority cannot be the only criteria for giving promotion, even if, this appellant (original petitioner) is senior to another person.
It is the claim of this appellant (original petitioner) in the writ petition that his junior has been promoted and this appellant promotion has been denied.
Thus, only on the ground of seniority, the claim for getting promotion was made before the learned Single Judge.
The criteria for getting promotion is not the “seniorityâ€, but it is “seniority-cum-meritâ€. Moreover, it further appears from the facts of the
case that this appellant (original petitioner) could not get the minimum qualifying marks and that is why he was not given promotion. Thus, it appears
that this appellant (original petitioner) though is a senior, but he is lesser in merit in comparison with other candidates. It is not the rule that every senior
is meritorious.
Thus, no error has been committed by the respondents in giving promotion to a junior person who is more meritorious, because the criteria fixed for
giving promotion was “seniority-cum-meritâ€. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing
the writ petition preferred by this appellant.
It further appears from the facts of the case that counter affidavit filed by the respondent - General Manager, Kshetriya Gramin Bank, suggests
that case of this appellant (original petitioner) is not ousted forever or always. His case can be again considered when next time promotions are to be
given.
In view this fact, we see no reason to entertain this
Letters Patent Appeal as no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.3360 of 2005,
vide judgment and order dated 29.06.2011, hence, this Letters Patent Appeal is, hereby, dismissed.