Vijay Singh vs National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development and others

K.S. Kumaran, J.—This is an appeal filed against the order dated 20.3.1991 vide which learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by appellant-Vijay Singh.

Appellant-Vijay Singh, a Grade ''A'' Officer in the National Bank for Agricultural & Rural Development (for short, ''NBARD''), was found not suitable for promotion to Grade ''B'' in the selection held in the year 1986 and his representation was also rejected. Therefore, he filed C.W.P. 5925 of 1986 in this Court praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certio-rari/mandamus quashing the impugned order An-nexure P7 dated 9.10.1986, by which he was informed that his representation to re-consider his case for promotion to Grade ''B'' was rejected and directing the respondents to promote him to Grade ''B'' from the date his juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits. One of the grounds raised by him is that the Selection Committee which interviewed him was not properly constituted because it did not include one belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, who should be of the rank equivalent or higher to the one for which the promotion is to be made, as provided in the circular, Annexure P1, but Mr. D. Ramaswamy, who belongs to the Reserve Bank of India was included. Annexure P1, a circular issued by the NBARD dated 30.9.1985 relied upon by him provided that an officer belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe should invariably be included in the Selection Committee constituted for interviewing the candidates for recruitment, promotions etc. and that if an officer belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, who is sufficiently senior is not available in the Regional Office/Sub Office for inclusion in the Selection committee, an Assistant Development Officer in Grade ''A'' belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe can also be included in the Selection Committee for interviewing the candidates for recruitment/promotion in Group ''B'' and ''C'' services. It also provided that in the Selection Committee for recruitment/promotion etc. in Group ''A'' service an officer belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, who is one grade higher to the post for which the selection is to be made, is competent to be associated with such Selection Committee. Therefore, his contention is that necessarily one member belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribe, who should be of the rank equivalent or higher to the one for which the promotion is to be made has to be included in the Selection Committee and that he has to be from NBARD itself and not an outsider. It is on this ground that the appellant challenged the constitution of the Selection Committee as invalid.

Apart from this, the appellant also pleaded in the writ petition that his non-selection was due to mala fide and arbitrary exercise of the executive powers. He had highlighted certain instances of corruption, favouritism going on at all levels of the NBARD officers at Delhi, as a result of which was transferred to Sri Na-gar and then to Chandigarh. He has also alleged that it was due to the mala fide attitude of respondent No. 2 -Mr. Bhave that his promotion has been stalled. According to him, Mr. Bhave was holding very influential position and he has been able to pressurise the Selection Committee to reject his rightful claim despite the fact that he has been rated ''Good'' and ''Very Good'' in the year 1984-85 and 1985-86 and no adverse report was ever communicated to him. He has further alleged that he is senior to at least ten persons, who have been selected and that as per Rule 3(b) of the NBARD (Staff) Rules, 1982 (for short, ''the Rules), an officer in Grade ''A'' who has put in a minimum of three years service in that Grade, has to be promoted on the basis of the assessment of his performance appraisal reports in the last three years and interview, but the interview cannot be allowed to carry such a weight as to nullify the previous service record of the officer. He has further alleged that the interview board did not evolve any criteria to adjudge the suitability or otherwise of the officers, who appeared for the interview.

Respondent No. 1 controverted the allegations made by the writ petitioner- appellant and averred that he is estopped from challenging the validity of the constitution of the Selection Committee on the ground of inclusion of Shri D. Ramaswamy because the Selection Committee which consisted of Shri Rameswamy held interviews in 1987 in which he had been selected. According to respondent No. 1 if the Selection Committee was not properly constituted for the year 1986, then the Selection Committee constituted in 1987 would be deemed to be suffering from the same infirmity and the selection of the writ petitioner- appellant would also be liable to be voided. After hearing the parties, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition with the following observations :-

"I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner is estopped to challenge his non-selection in the year 1986 on account of his own conduct and his selection in the year 1987 by a Selection Committee of which Mr. D. Ramaswmay was one of the members. The petitioner was not willing to take a stand that if this Court holds that the Selection Committee in the year 1986 was not properly constituted, his selection in the year 1987 may also be quashed. According to the learned counsel of the petitioner, there was no challenge to his selection in the year 1987. I am unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. No body has to challenge his selection in the year 1987, as according to the respondents it is a good selection.

For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in this petition, which is hereby dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs."

We have heard the counsel for the both the sides and perused the record and are of the view that the appeal has to succeed and the matter has to be remanded back to the learned Single Judge for fresh decision.

As pointed earlier, the only ground on which the writ petitioner-appellant has been non-suited is that he was selected in the year 1987 by a Selection Committee consisting of Shri D. Ramaswamy, who was also a member of the Committee in the year 1986 which had not selected him i.e. the appellant. The other grounds of challenge were not considered. In the context of the view taken by the learned Single Judge, it is relevant to mention that during the pendency of the writ petition, the writ petitioner-appellant had filed Civil Misc. No. 987 of 1987 praying for a stay of the fresh interview. The appellant alleged therein that the NBARD was preparing to conduct fresh interview for the promotion of officers Grade A to officers Grade B, who are junior to him and, therefore, the balance of convenience required that the fresh interview should be stayed. Vide order dated 8.4.1987, this Court directed that until further orders, the selection, if any, made by the respondents shall be subject to the further orders that may be passed in the writ petition. This Court also directed that until further orders, the selection, if any, made by the respondents shall be subject to the further orders that may be passed in the writ petition. This Court also directed that the appellant may appear in the interview without prejudice to his rights in the writ petition and in pursuance of the direction given by the Court in Civil Misc. Application, that he had appeared for selection held in the year 1987 and was ultimately selected and promoted. Therefore, the appellant cannot be non-suited on the ground that he had taken part in the selection held in the year 1987 before the Selection Committee which included Sri D. Ramaswamy was selected and had accepted promotion and, therefore, he is estopped from contending that the Selection Committee for the year 1986 was not validly constituted.

Learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. 352 of 1986 - Dharam Vir v. Union of India and others, decided on 19.11.1986, wherein the following directions have been given :-

"In future, wherever under Government directives the second respondent Bank is obliged to include on the interview penal an SC/ST members, such member will interview all candidates and not just Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates. If a Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribe member of the requisite grade is not available from within the second respondent Bank, it will be open to the second respondent Bank to appoint a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe member to the interview panel from outside the employment of the second respondent."

Though this decision may not relate to the NBARD, the principles apply with equal force to the respondent-bank also. Apart from the other grounds urged in the writ petition, the appellant has specifically urged in paragraph 7 of the writ petition that numerous persons in the higher categories are available for being associated in the interview board for the selection of Grade ''B'' officers. The appellant has specified that an officer of Grade "E" at Regional Office, Chandigarh and belonging to the Scheduled Caste and about 30 officers in Grade ''C'' are available in the bank, who could have been associated in the interview board instead of an outsider.

Therefore, taking into consideration all these aspects, we are of the view that the writ petition should not have been dismissed on the sole ground that the appellant-petitioner is estopped from challenging the validity of the Selection Committee of the year 1986, simply because he had taken part in the interview held in the year 1987 and was successful. In view of what we have pointed put above, the other grounds of challenge raised by him in the writ petition will have to be considered and decided on merits. This is especially so in view of the fact that the appellant-petitioner has attributed mala fides to respondent No. 2 alleging that he has influenced the Selection Committee to reject his claim and in view of his contention that the selection made in the year 1986 ignoring him was in violation of Rule 3(b) of the Rules and since his allegation that his service record has always been good, has not been denied by the respondent-bank. It has merely stated that the appellant- petitioner cannot claim promotion merely on the basis of his record but has to come through successful in the interview. Therefore, we hold that all the grounds of challenge raised by the appellant-petitioner in his writ petition have to be considered and decided on merits and for this purpose, the case has to be remitted back to the learned Single Judge.

Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition is set aside, and the case is remanded back to the learned Single Judge, for fresh decision, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above.

Appeal allowed.