P.K. Dubey and Others vs Sharda Grameen Bank and Others

Shantanu Kemkar, J.—These three petitions involve common question of facts and law, therefore, are being disposed of by this common order.

Petitioner of W.P. No. 86/2001 P.K. Dubey claims that he was appointed on the post of Officer Scale I by the first respondent Sharda Grameen Bank w.e.f. 20.2.1981. Petitioners of W.P. No. 7011/2000 Sobran Singh Choudhary and Nanhelal Suman claim to have been appointed by the first respondent Bank on the post of Branch Manager w.e.f. 21.1.1981. Petitioners of W.P. No. 7210/2000 Chandra Kant Sharma, Sarman Lal and Ajit Choubey claim to have been appointed by the first respondent Bank on the post of Officer Scale I w.e.f. 2.4.1980, 23.9.1980 and 27.9.1980 respectively. The petitioners are aggrieved by promotion of their juniors (private respondents) to the scale II post by the Staff Selection Committee ignoring seniority of the petitioners and contrary to the criteria of seniority cum merit fixed for the promotion.

The first respondent Sharda Grameen Bank, Satna is a Regional Rural Bank. The impugned promotions from Scale I Officers to Scale II Officers of the first respondent Bank are governed by Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Other Employees) Rules, 1988 (for short the Rules) framed by the Central Government in exercise of power conferred by Section 29 read with Section 17 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. Schedule II of the Rules provides for Regional Manager/Senior Manager which is a Scale II post. As per the Schedule II of the Rules the source of Recruitment on the Scale II post is 100 % by promotion on the basis of criteria of ''seniority cum merit'' from amongst confirmed officers of the Bank and in case of non-availability of the eligible officers in it, on temporary basis from other Sponsor Banks, or from other Banks or organizations on deputation. The method prescribed for ascertaining the minimum necessary requirement for promotion by seniority cum merit is interview and assessment of performance reports for the preceding three years.

The first respondent Bank in its Board meeting dated 30.12.1995 resolved the policy (Annexure E) for promotion of its officers of Scale I to Scale II posts. The said policy for promotion circulated by the Bank vide letter dated 1.11.1995 provided marking system for selection in which out of total 100 marks for seniority 40 marks were fixed, for qualification, performance appraisal and interview 15, 25 and 20 marks respectively were fixed. For preparation of panel qualifying marks of 40 % in aggregate were fixed.

However, before the consideration of the cases for promotions under challenge the Bank passed another resolution in its Board meeting dated 30.8.1999 and framed another policy for promotion (Annexure A-4 in W.P. No. 7210/2000) circulated vide circular dated 24.9.1999. The objective of the said policy (Annexure A-4) was stated to provide opportunities of advancement in career path to the Bank Officers by virtue of their demonstrated experience, performance, merit and potential. The source of recruitment was 100 % by promotion from amongst confirmed officers working in Scale I of the Bank. The criteria of promotion was seniority-cum-merit. Eight years of service experience was the eligibility criteria in the concerned Bank and a graduation from recognized University or any equal qualification. The rule of seniority- cum-merit was with due consideration of minimum merit/fitness. The mode of selection was assessment of performance reports for the preceding three years period and interview. In order to assess/ascertain the job performance of eligible candidates annual performance appraisal report in the prescribed format was required to be obtained for the preceding three years. In case of non-availability of performance appraisal report of any year, the available record was to be assessed. The evaluation of job performance in rating/marking was to be done out of 60 marks out of total 100 marks set for three years appraisal on yearly basis. The interview was prescribed to be done for 40 marks by the Staff Selection Committee constituted under the policy. Preparation of panel of successful candidates was to be done strictly on ''seniority cum merit'' basis and accordingly only those will be promoted who will achieve qualifying marks of 60 % to be decided by the Staff Selection Committee. The policy also provided for reservation of post for SC/ST and other backward classes with a condition that there shall be no separate standards for evaluation of candidates for SC/ST for promotion.

The petitioner contends that the newly framed policy of promotion (Annexure A-4) though provided for promotion on the basis of ''senioritycum-merit'' but no marks were fixed for seniority as were fixed in the earlier policy (Annexure E). It is contended that fixing of 60 marks for performance of 3 years and 40 marks for interview and fixing qualifying marks of 60% is deviation from the Rules and the criteria in the policy of promotion on the basis of ''seniority-cum-merit''. It is stated that by fixing such high qualifying marks the Bank has virtually adopted the policy of ''merit cum seniority''. It is stated that in the earlier policy (Annexure E)due weightage was given to the seniority. It is also contended that the impugned order of promotion has been issued in contravention of the roster for reservation. By adopting the criteria of minimum 60 % qualifying marks, number of juniors have been promoted and have been given seniority in the promotion depriving the petitioners from their due promotion and due seniority in the promotion.

On the other hand the respondents have supported the impugned promotion order issued by the first respondent Bank. According to them the promotion has been done in terms of the policy and the norms fixed in it. The respondents stated that the Staff Selection Committee was well within its right to fix the minimum qualifying marks taking into consideration the post to be filled, the job requirement and the responsibilities. It is further stated that the posts were of Senior Management cadre requiring high degrees of responsibility and job requirement. In the circumstances fixing of 60 % as the minimum qualifying marks was fully justified. It is further stated that the principle of seniority cum merit as also the reservation has been strictly complied with and there is no deviation from the same.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I find that there is no dispute that the promotion from Scale I to Scale II Officer was required to be done by the first respondent on the basis of criteria of ''seniority cum merit''. The earlier policy (Annexure E) was providing 40 marks for seniority, 15 marks for qualification, 25 marks for performance appraisal and 20 marks for interview. The list of those candidate who secured 40 % marks in aggregate of all the aforesaid categories, i.e., seniority, qualification, performance appraisal and interview was to be prepared and selection was to be made on the basis of maximum marks obtained. However, only few days before the meeting of the Staff Selection Committee for consideration of the impugned promotions a new policy (Annexure A-4 of W.P. No. 7210/2000) was circulated on 24.9.1999 in which though it was mentioned that the promotion of the aforesaid 16 vacancies of Scale II Officers shall be done on the basis of principle of seniority cum merit. However, for seniority no marks were provided and out of total 100 marks 60 marks were fixed for three years appraisals and for interview 40 marks were fixed. The Staff Selection Committee prepared the list of the candidates who could secure qualifying 60 % marks on the basis of performance appraisals and interview. On perusal of the records of the Staff Selection committee it is very clear that cases of only those Scale I Officers were taken into consideration for promotion to Scale II who could secure 60 % marks in the performance appraisals and in interview.

Thus it is clear that though in the Rules and in the policy the criteria of promotion was seniority cum merit but in the policy (Annexure A-4) the fixation of marks was only for performance appraisals and interview. Such a fixation of marks without providing any weitage for the seniority certainly amounts to giving complete go bye to the criteria of seniority cum merit and it virtually amounts to adopting the criteria of merit cum seniority. The principles of seniority-cum merit and merit cum seniority are conceptually different. In the criteria of seniority cum merit greater emphasis is led on seniority though it may not be the determinative factor. In the case of merit cum seniority greater emphasis is on merit and ability and seniority plays a less significant role. Seniority is to be given weight only when merit and ability are approximately equal. Seniority cum merit requires promotion to be made by selection on the basis of seniority subject to the fitness of the candidates of the post from among persons eligible for promotion. [See Bhagwandas Tiwari v. Dewas Shajapur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Ors. (2006) 12 SCC 574].

In the present case the Rules and the Policy provide the criteria of promotion to be seniority cum merit. However, in the policy the fixation of markings only for three years appraisals and interview and requiring a candidate to obtain 60 % out of the marks fixed for assessment of the appraisals and interview amounts to deviation from the said criteria.

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered view the impugned order of promotion issued by the first respondent is a result of wrong fixation of markings the fixation of markings is not based upon criteria of seniority cum merit. As a result the impugned order of promotion deserves to be and is hereby quashed. Fixation of marks in the policy circulated on 24.9.1999 (Annexure A-4) being not in consonance with the criteria of seniority cum merit, the same is also quashed. The first respondent Bank is directed to convene a meeting for framing a fresh policy for promotion in which the marking system should be in adherence to the criteria of seniority cum merit. While framing the fresh policy the first respondent Bank shall also take into consideration fixing standard for evaluation of candidates of SC/ST for promotion, if permissible, and take suitable decision in that regard in accordance with law. Thereafter the staff selection committee shall consider the cases of eligible scale I officers for promotion to the scale II post.

The petitions are allowed. No orders as to cost.