AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Counsels heard.
Petition admitted.
With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.
This petition arises under the following circumstances:
The petitioner belongs to category of Clerical Staff in as much as he is holding the post of Gradel (Clerical). He seeks promotion to the post of
S.O GradeA. For this he has to pass examination. For the purpose of this examination every body is not eligible. It is only those employees who
come within the panel of eligible persons, can take part in the examination. When a panel is prepared, the failed candidates are also to be included.
They are over and above the normal panel. These candidates were given the nomenclatures of Repeater. As per the guidelines issued on 30th of
May, 1972, the 'Repeater1 was a person who has been unsuccessful in more than one test. The exact para dealing with this subject reads as
under:
A candidate who has been unsuccessful in more than one test will be treated as a Repeater and such Repeater will, if they sit for the test be in
additiion to the candidates as above. In this contest test includes a panel interview.
The above definition of'Repeater1 was modified on 5.4.1990. The respondentBank took a decision that any candidate who is failed even once
would be treated as 'Repeater'. The amended provision reads as under
A candidate who has been unsuccessful in one or more tests will be treated as a 'Repeater1 and such Repeater will, if they sit for the test be in
addition to the candidates as above.
The further fact is that the amended provision was made applicable for the ensuing test for penal year 198990.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the amended provision should be given retrospective effect. The argument which is
being advanced is that the petitioner appeared in the examination in the year 1987. The result was not declared. This was on the ground that he did
not come within the panel. The petitioner submits that if the amended provision is given retrospective effect then in the year in which he appeared
and in which he was found to be not eligible for inclusion in the panel, then he would get the benefit of promotion. He wants even a candidate who
had failed once to be included in the definition of a 'Repeater1. In this manner he wants enlargement of the panel.
I am of the opinion that the question as to whether a particular circular should be given retrospective effect or not is beyond the scope of judicial
review. The respondentBank in its wisdom has amended a provision and has given prospective effect to the amended provisions. In the amended
provisions, the word use is ""Ensuing Test"". The Bank has further given explanation. This is to the effect that this decision was taken after due
deliberation with the Association of the employees. Thus the decision taken by respondentBank in giving effect to the amended provisions for the
year 198990 cannot be faulted. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the case reported as D.S. Nakara Vs. Union of
India, AIR 1983 SC 1130 would not be attracted to the facts of this case.
As a matter of fact, this is not a case where any classification is being carved out. What is being done is that different parameters are being
fixed for the purpose of examination which is to take place for and after the year 198990. This can be done. This petition as such is found without
merit and dismissed. There would be no order as to costs.