Pandyan Grama Bank Officers Union vs The Chairman, Pandyan Grama Bank

Honourable Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma

The prayer made in this writ petition is, to issue a writ, in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondent to strictly adhere the selection process, under the Rules of the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Other Employees) Rules, 1998, for giving promotions to Scale II Officers, as Scale III Officers, in the Respondent''s Bank, by interviewing the first 21 senior candidates, in seniority list, published by the Respondent bank, for the post of 7 Scale III Officers, as per the circular, dated 02.01.2008.

It is pleaded case of the Petitioner that the Government of India, framed Rules, governing the appointment and promotion of officers, employees, known as ''Regional Rules Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Other Employees), Rule 1988.''

The case of the Petitioner is that the Chairman of the Bank, issued a circular No. PAD/54/2007-08, dated 02.01.2008, to accord permission to fill up the post of ''Scale III officers'', by way of promotion.

In the circular, it was categorically mentioned that all the guidelines in force for promotion, including Reservation Policy for SC/ST would be strictly followed.

The case of the Petitioner is that after the issuance of the circular, there were no further proceedings, undertaken by the Respondents.

That after great effort, it has come knowledge of the Petitioner that 57 Scale II Officers were called for interview, held on 18.07.2008, against 7 vacancy of III category officers, the name of the persons who were called for interview, is also disclosed in the petition.

The claim of the Petitioner is that the Respondent, violated the Rules, in making the selection against which the Petitioner filed a representation.

It is also the case of the Petitioner that interview for the promotion is scheduled to be held, on 18.07.2008, which is required to be stopped.

A writ in the nature of mandamus, cannot be issued, for declaration, or to direct the Respondent to follow the statutory provisions or law, as even in absence such declaration, everybody is bound to follow the law. It is only the violation of law, which gives jurisdiction to a party to approach the court for redressal of the grievance.

In the present case, the Petitioner, if so advised, could challenge the interview list, by impleading persons included as parties, by making out a positive case showing, which rule or Regulation was violated in drawing the select list for interview.

In absence of necessary parties and specific pleading, it is not possible for this Court to adjudicate the lis, raised in this petition.

The writ petition as framed, is devoid of material particulars and also suffer from vagueness and the defect of non-joiner of necessary parties, thus is not competent.

No merit. "Dismissed."

No costs.