Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Samsul Haque & Ors vs Nadia Gramin Bank & Ors on 16 May, 2008
Author: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
Bench: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
And
The Hon'ble Justice Tapan Mukherjee
F.M.A. 111 of 2008
Samsul Haque & Ors.
Versus
Nadia Gramin Bank & Ors.
For the Appellants: Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay
Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy
Mr. P. Bhattacharyya
For the Respondent bank : Mr. Sakti Nath Mukherjee
Mr. L. K. Gupta
Mr. Saptangshu Basu
For the Respondent Nos.5 to 16 : Mr. Swapan Kumar Dutta
Mr. Dipankar Das Gupta
Mr. Anirban Pramanick
Heard On: 24.04.2008 & 05.05.2008.
Judgment On: 16.05.2008.
PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, J.
The scale-I officers (JMG) of the respondent bank filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the promotion process in respect of promotion to Scale-II. The aforesaid promotion is governed by the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1998 framed under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976.
The real grievances of the writ petitioners is that the selection for promotion has been virtually made on the basis of merit-cum-seniority in violation of the specific rule prescribed for the promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The aforesaid contentions made on behalf of the writ petitioners did not find favour with the learned Single Judge of the trial court and the writ petition was dismissed by the said learned Single Judge by the judgment and order under appeal.
The instant appeal has been preferred at the instance of the said writ petitioners assailing the judgment and order under appeal whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellants herein was dismissed on merits.
For the purpose of adjudication of the issues raised in this appeal, relevant provisions of the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1998 are required to be taken into consideration. The basis of promotion to the post of Scale-II officer and the mode of selection have been provided in Clause 2 of Third Schedule of the aforesaid Promotion Rules of 1998. Clause 2(d) of the aforesaid Third Schedule to the Promotion Rules, 1998 speaks of promotion to the post of Scale-II officer on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The mode of selection, however, has been prescribed in Clause 2(f) of the said Third Schedule. The composition of committee for considering the Commission has been mentioned in Clause 2(g). The selection process for promotion has been mentioned in Clause 2(j) of Third Schedule.
For proper appreciation, aforesaid Clauses of Third Schedule are set out hereunder:
" 2 (d) Whether promotion to be: Promotion shall be made on made on seniority basis or the basis of seniority-cum-seniority-cum-basis. merit.
(f) Mode of Selection: The selection of the candidate shall be made by the committee on the basis of written test, interview and assessment of Performance Appraisal Reports for the preceding five years as an officer in scale-I/Field Supervisor.
(g) Composition of Committee: The committee (for consider-ing promotion) shall consistof the following persons, namely -
i) The Chairman of the concerned Regional Rural Bank-Chairman
ii) A director nominated by the Sponsor Bank-Member
iii) A director nominated by the National Bank-Member Note : If none of the members of the Committee belongs to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, the Board may nominate a person belonging to Schedules Caste/Schedules Tribes as an additional member and such person shall participate in the process of selection by the concerned Committee.
(j) Selection Process for Promotion : The selection
shall be on the basis of Performance in the
written test, interview and
Performance Appraisal Reports
for preceding five years as
per the division of marks given
below :
A) Written Test : 60 marks
B) Interview : 20 marks
C) Performance Appraisal Reports : 20 marks Total Marks : 100 marks A) Written test: The candidates shall be require to ( 60 marks) appear for written test comprising of two parts viz. Part (A)covering Banking Law and Practice of Banking and Part(B)covering Credit Policy, Credit Management including Priority Sector, Economics and Management.
60 marks allotted to written test shall be further divided as under:
Part 'A' 30 marks Part 'B' 30 marks A list of only those candidates, who secure a minimum of 40% marks in each part shall be prepared and such candidates shall be called for interview.
B) Interview (20 marks): There shall be no minimum qualify-ing marks for the interview.
C) Performance appraisal: Performance Appraisal Reports for Reports (20 marks)the preceding five years shall be considered for the purpose of awarding marks for promotion."
Thirteen vacancies for Scale-II officers were notified by the bank and in terms of Clause 2(i) of the Third Schedule, 52 candidates were identified to fall in the zone of consideration. Out of the aforesaid 52 candidates, 26 including the appellants herein qualified in the written test. Thereafter, all the aforesaid 26 candidates including the appellants herein who qualified in the written test were asked to appear at the interview. In the said interview following factors were taken into consideration in respect of each one of the candidates:
i) Marks secured in the written test
ii) Marks secured in the performance appraisal
iii) Marks secured in the interview The management of the bank published the result of the aforesaid 26 candidates who have qualified in the written test after taking into account the marks of the written test of the respective candidates once again along with the marks obtained in viva-voce test and performance appraisal. Unfortunately, although the appellant No. 1 is senior to all the private respondents, except the private respondent No. 4 and the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are senior to private respondent Nos. 8 to 16, they have been declared as failed. According to the appellants, there is no scope to declare any candidate passed or failed since no Benchmark was prescribed in the Promotion Rules of 1998 for interview and performance appraisal. The learned Counsel of the appellants further submits that the management of the bank by superseding the appellants herein have given promotion to the private respondents without following the principle of seniority-cum-merit. It has been specifically urged on behalf of the appellants herein that the comparative assessment of merits of the candidates is not at all permissible while selection for promotion is made following the policy of seniority-cum-merit.
Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent bank submits that the authorities of the bank are under the obligation and duty bound to follow the rules in its totality and any particular rule has to be construed in the context of the entire rule. The learned Senior Counsel of the respondent bank, however, admits that there may be an apparent inconsistency between Clause 2(d) on the one hand and Clauses 2(f) and (j) on the other hand. Undisputedly, Clause 2(d) provides seniority-cum-merit formula and Clauses 2(f) and (j) provide for assessment of merits of the candidates. The learned Senior Counsel of the respondent bank further submits that the rule of construction in case of an apparent inconsistency is that a head- on collision of the different Rules should be avoided and an endeavour should be made for harmonious construction of the statutory rules in order to resolve the inconsistency in respect of the statutory rules.
It has also been argued on behalf of the respondent bank that there is no challenge to the procedure prescribed in the Rules. We are, however, not very much impressed by the aforesaid argument as the appellants/writ petitioners have specifically challenged the selection procedure on the ground that the same is contrary to Clause 2(d) of the Third Schedule which provides for selection on the basis of seniority-cum-merit.
The principal question to be decided in this appeal is, whether the respondent bank while following the prescribed procedure for selecting candidates for promotion to the post of Scale-II officer really followed the principle of seniority-cum- merit as specifically provided in the promotion rules.
The learned Senior Counsel representing the appellants submits that the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1998 made it clear that the promotion to the posts of Scale-II officers should be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit but the selection process for such promotion as provided by the said Rules of 1998 is not in consonance with the aforesaid policy. The aforesaid inconsistency has also been admitted by the learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent bank.
Therefore, it is to be decided whether the bank should follow the selection process for promotion as provided in the Rules of 1998 even though such selection is in violation and/or inconsistent with the promotion policy based on seniority-cum- merit.
The learned Single Judge following the earlier judgment delivered by another Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 8066 (W) of 1999 (Pradip Kumar Sarkar vs. Murshidabad Gramin Bank and Ors.) held as hereunder:
"16. Before going to the next point, it is relevant to take note that the 1998 Rules, in effect, postulates that promotion to be given thereunder is actually based on merit-cum-seniority and not seniority-cum-merit. This view has found support in a judgment delivered by another Hon'ble Judge of this Court in W.P. 8066(W) of 1999 (Pradip Kumar Sarkar and Ors. Vs. Murshidabad Gramin Bank and Ors. by judgment delivered on 2.4.01). In the said judgment, it has been held that although under Rule 2(d) it has been stipulated that promotion is to be given on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, but in effect, it is merit-cum-seniority. The learned Single Judge has also held that Clause 2(d) has to be read as merit-cum-seniority within the definition of the said phraseology. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are to be found at Pages 6 and 9 to 11 thereof and, they are accordingly reproduced hereunder as follows:
Page-6 (top) ' With regard to the second ground Mr. Sanyal has submitted that the relevant Standing Order being Standing Order No. 642 E dated July 29, 1998, if read as a whole, clearly postulates that the promotion shall be made on merit cum seniority basis and not as seniority cum merit as wrongly stipulated in 2(b) thereof. According to Mr. Sanyal, Clause 2 of the third schedule of the said Standing Order, if read as a whole, would logically suggest such meaning.
Mr. Sanyal in support of his contention has cited two Supreme Court decisions reported in 98 Vol. III Supreme Court Cases, Page 694 and AIR 1986, Supreme Court, Page 1043.' Page 9-11 ' Rule 2 of the third schedule of the Standing Order is relevant for consideration in the instant case. Sub-Clause (b) denotes the promotion would be made on seniority cum merit. The eligibility clauses being clause
(e), (b) and (i) give the criterion to bring the candidates within the zone of consideration.
Clause (f) prescribes the mode of selection i.e. by holding written test, interview and performance assessment. Clause
(g) deals with the composition of the selection committee.
Clause (j) stipulates that the selection shall be on the basis of performance in the written tests, interview and performance appraisal require for proceeding five years. Sub-Clause A stipulates that a candidate to become eligible to be called on in interview must obtain 40% marks in both the groups whereas sub-clause B denotes that there is no minimum qualifying marks in the interview. Whereas sub-clause C the last five years records are to be considered for awarding marks. There are total 100 marks in the selection process out of which written tests denotes 60 marks, interview and performance records 20 marks each.
It is significant that there is no minimum marks prescribed for being considered for ultimate selection. If I have to accept the contention of Mr. Mukherjee that the promotion in the instant case is in accordance with seniority cum merit then I have to find out from the standing order the minimum marks to make the senior most eligible for the promotional post. In absence of such marking it is very difficult to ask the authority to act on the basis of the Standing Order by giving promotion to the senior cadre on the basis of minimum eligible qualification when there is no minimum eligible qualification fixed for the said post. The rule of interpretation does not permit me to add or delete any word. I have to give harmonious construction of the said Standing Order as far as practicable. Hence, reading clause 2 of the third schedule of the said Standing Order and taking a sum total of the relevant sub-clauses and the meaning thereof it appears to me that although the said promotion has been stipulated to be made on the basis of seniority cum merit it is in effect merit cum seniority. I, therefore, find substance in Mr. Sanyal's argument. I hold that clause 2(d) has to be read as merit cum seniority in accordance with the definition of the said phrase as held by the Apex Court in various judgments including the judgment reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court, page 2565. Hence I do not find any irregularity in the selection process."
[SIC but underlining by this Court] The learned Single Judge following the said judgment in the case of Pradip Kumar Sarkar & Ors. (Supra) came to an erroneous finding that the 1998 Rules although provides that promotion is to be given on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, in effect, it is on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. The aforesaid finding of the learned Single Judge is virtually contrary to the prescribed rules which are applicable in the matter of granting promotion. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, was clearly misled by the provisions mentioned in the Rules with regard to the mode of selection. The prescribed procedures for mode of selection can under no circumstances change the basis of promotion which has been clearly mentioned in the said Rules i.e. seniority-cum-merit. In the present case, undisputedly, the respondent bank selected the candidates and granted promotion actually on the basis of merit-cum-seniority and not seniority-cum-merit which has been erroneously approved by the learned Single Judge in the judgment under appeal.
We respectfully disagree with the aforesaid findings of the learned Single Judge. Clause 2(d) of the Third Schedule of the 1998 Rules specifically provides that promotion should be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and there is no ambiguity in this regard. When the 1998 Rules clearly provide that promotion should be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, the learned Single Judge had no scope to take a contrary view since it is well- settled that the Court cannot rewrite the Rules.
The learned Single Judge also erroneously held as hereunder:
"12. Merely because at Rule 2(d), the authors of the Rule have stated that promotion shall be on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, the same, by itself, cannot mean that under the 1998 Rules, seniority has to be given weightage in supersession of merit."
In our opinion, the learned Single Judge did not lay down the correct law. In the event, promotion is to be given on the basis of seniority-cum-merit then seniority has to be given weightage in supersession of merit.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B. V. Sivaiah and Others vs. K. Addanki Babu and Others reported in (1998) 6 SCC 720 specifically held:
"18. We thus arrive at the conclusion that the criterion of 'seniority-cum-
merit' in the matter of promotion
postulates that given the minimum
necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration, the senior, even though less meritorious, shall have priority and a comparative assessment of merit is not required to be made. For assessing the minimum necessary merit, the competent authority can lay down the minimum standard that is required and also prescribe the mode of assessment of merit of the employee who is eligible for consideration for promotion. Such assessment can be made by assigning marks on the basis of appraisal of performance on the basis of service record and interview and prescribing the minimum marks which would entitle a person to be promoted on the basis of seniority-cum- merit."
Referring to the earlier decision of the Supreme Court, Arijit Pasayat, J. in the case of Bhagwandas Tiwari & Ors. vs. Dewas Shajapur Kshetriya Gramin Bank & Ors. reported in AIR 2007 SC 994 explained the principles of seniority-cum-merit and merit- cum-seniority as hereunder:
"10. The principle of 'merit-cum- seniority' lays greater emphasis 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. In the context of Rule 5(2) of the Indian Administrative Service/Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 which prescribed that "selection for inclusion in such list shall be based on (AIR 1974 SC merit and suitability in all respects
87) with due regard to seniority" Mathew, J.
in Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor and Ors., 1973 (2) SCC 836, has said:-
' For inclusion in the list, merit and suitability in all respects should be the governing consideration and that seniority should play a secondary role. It is only when merit and suitability are roughly equal that seniority will be a determining factor, or if it is not fairly possible to make an assessment inter se of the merit and suitability of two eligible candidates and come to a firm conclusion, seniority would tilt the scale.' (AIR 1974 SC 87) Similarly, Beg, J. (as the learned Chief Para 22 Justice then was) has said (SCC p. 851, Para 22) :
'22. Thus, we think that the correct view, in conformity with the plain meaning of words used in the relevant rules, is that the 'entrance' or 'inclusion' test, for a place on the select list, is competitive and comparative applied to all eligible candidates and not minimal like pass marks at an examination. The Selection Committee has an unrestricted choice of the best available talent, from amongst eligible candidates, determined by reference a reasonable criteria applied in assessing the facts revealed by service records of all eligible candidates so that merit and not here seniority is the governing factor.'
11. On the other hand, as between the principles of seniority and merit, the criterion of 'seniority-cum-merit' lays greater emphasis on seniority. In State (AIR 1968 SC of Mysore and Anr. V. Syed Mahmood and 1113) Ors., 1968 (3) SCR 363, while considering Rule 4(3)(b) of the Mysore State Civil Services General Recruitment Rules, 1957 which required promotion to be made by selection on the basis of seniority-cum-
merit, this Court has observed that the rule required promotion to be made by selection on the basis of 'seniority subject to the fitness of candidate to discharge the duties of post from among persons eligible for promotion.' It was pointed out that where promotion is based on seniority-cum-merit, the officer cannot claim promotion as a matter of right by virtue of his seniority alone and if he is found unfit to discharge the duties of the higher post, he may be passed over and an officer junior to him may be promoted.
12. In State of Kerala and Anr. V. N. M. (AIR 1976 SC 490) Thomas and Ors., 1976 (2) SCC 310, A.N. Para 38 Ray, C.J. has thus explained the criterion of 'seniority-cum-merit' (SCC p. 335, Para 38):-
'With regard to promotion the normal principles are either merit-cum-
seniority or seniority-cum-merit. Seniority-cum-merit means that given the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration, the senior though the less meritorious shall have priority."
As observed earlier, the bank in the present case, granted promotion in violation of the promotion policy based on seniority-
cum-merit. Going through the records we find that the authorities of the respondent bank while selecting the candidates for promotion considered the marks secured by the individual candidates in the interview and performance appraisal reports apart from the written test and thus, in effect, followed the procedure for granting promotion on the basis of merit-cum-
seniority as specifically recorded by the learned Single Judge in the judgment under appeal. The marks secured in the interview as well as the performance appraisal report and in the written test cannot have any effect in the matter of granting promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. However, in order to ensure minimum standard of merit, provision for securing minimum 40% marks in each part in the written test cannot be declared unreasonable although ultimate selection cannot be based on the basis of marks secured by the candidates seeking promotion to the higher post.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hargovind Yadav vs. Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank and Ors. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 145 considered the aforesaid issue as hereunder:
"22. Interviews can be held and assessment of performance can be made by the Bank in connection with promotions. But that can be only to assess the minimum necessary merit. But where the procedure adopted does not provide the minimum standard for promotion, but only the minimum standard for interview and does the selection with reference to comparative marks, it is contrary to the rule of 'seniority-cum-merit'. This aspect of the matter has been completely lost sight of by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court in this round of litigation. As noticed above, they have proceeded on the basis that the appellant having failed to secure the minimum marks prescribed for interview, was rightly denied promotion, by ignoring the principle laid down by this Court in Sivaiah in regard to seniority-cum-merit. At all events, as the promotion policy adopted by the Bank was held to be illegal in the earlier round of litigation (WP No. 4485 of 1993 dated 13-10-1988), the Bank could not have adopted the same policy to again reject the appellant for promotion. We may also note that the law laid down in Sivaiah was reiterated in Sher Singh v. Surinder Kumar wherein this Court had occasion to consider a similar question relating to the promotion for the post of clerk to Field Supervisor in the case of another Gramin Bank. This Court held that as the criterion for making promotion from the post of clerk to that of Field Supervisor was seniority-cum-merit but the Bank did not follow the criterion of seniority-cum-merit but made promotions on the basis of merit-cum-seniority, the promotion was vitiated and therefore invalid."
The learned Single Judge approved the stand of the respondent bank in the matter of granting promotion even after recording that the selection for such promotion was made on the basis of merit- cum-seniority and not seniority-cum-merit as clearly mentioned in the Rules and thus, virtually the learned Single Judge made an attempt to re-legislate the statute and/or rewrite the Rules as argued by Mr. K. Bandyopadhyay, learned Senior Counsel representing the appellants. Mr. Bandyopadhyay also referred to and relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jinia Keotin and Others vs. Kumar Sitaram Manjhi and others reported in (2003) 1 SCC 730 (Paragraph 5).
There is no doubt that the Court has no power either to re- legislate the statute and/or rewrite the Rules. Therefore, the learned Single Judge even after coming to the specific finding that the rule for granting promotion on the basis of seniority- cum-merit has not been followed approved the action of the respondent bank with regard to selection of the candidates for granting promotion to the higher post.
The learned Senior Counsel of the appellants raised another issue relating to the conducting of the written test by a private agency without constituting a Committee in compliance with the Rules. In our opinion, the Rules should be followed at every stage and there is no scope to avoid the mandate of the Rules.
It has also been submitted on behalf of the respondent bank that the 1998 Rules contained several provisions materially different than those in the 1988 Rules. According to the learned Senior Counsel of the respondent bank, all the decided and reported cases on promotion in Regional Rural Banks/Gramin Banks including B. V. Sivaiah & Ors. (Supra) and Hargovind Yadav (Supra) have considered the Recruitment Rules of 1988 and not the Recruitment Rules of 1998. Since the Recruitment Rules of 1988 as well as the Recruitment Rules of 1998 specifically provide that the selection for promotion should be made strictly on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, the principles of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions cited on behalf of the appellants are very much applicable in the facts of the present case.
The learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent bank submits that there is an apparent inconsistency between Clause 2(d) of the Third Schedule on one hand and Clauses 2(f) & (j) on the other hand. Thus, the said learned Senior Counsel of the respondent bank virtually admits that the mode of selection for promotion mentioned in the Rules is inconsistent with the principle for granting promotion in terms of the aforesaid Rules on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The learned Senior Counsel of the respondent bank further submits that the Court should make an endeavour for harmonious construction of the aforesaid Rules in order to resolve the apparent inconsistency. It is true that if the harmonious construction is possible and permissible then the same should be accepted otherwise the principle prescribed in the Rules for promotion based on seniority-cum-merit cannot be given a go-bye even for the purpose of following the selection process as provided in the said Rules of 1998. The selection process prescribed in the rules should be followed in order to achieve the policy of promotion based on seniority-cum-merit as specifically mentioned in the said Rules of 1998. The policy for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit cannot be diluted at any stage and if necessary suitable amendment of the selection process should be made. Undisputedly, the selection process for promotion should be prescribed in such a manner so that the policy for promotion based on seniority-cum- merit can be followed and implemented.
The provisions mentioned in the Recruitment Rules of 1998 with regard to the mode of selection and the selection process for promotion cannot have any overriding effect on the principle prescribed for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum- merit as specifically mentioned in Clause 2(d) of the Third Schedule of the Recruitment rules, since the procedure cannot prevail upon principle or supersede the principle under any circumstances. The principle prescribed in the Rules for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit should be strictly followed and implemented at every stage and in doing so, if any inconsistency is detected with any other rule prescribing the procedure relating to mode of selection and selection process for promotion then such inconsistency should be avoided in such a manner so that the principle prescribed for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit is not at all defeated.
With regard to mode of selection and selection process for promotion, minimum standard prescribed for written test upon imposing condition on the candidates for securing a minimum of 40% marks in each part of the written test should be followed and in doing so there would be no inconsistency with the principle prescribed for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit in Clause 2(d) of the Third Schedule. Regarding interview and performance appraisal reports, no minimum qualifying marks have been prescribed. Therefore, the concerned authority should consider the performance of the candidate concerned at the interview and performance appraisal reports for the preceding five years in order to assess the suitability of the candidates to the promotional posts. This Court cannot rewrite the Rules but in order to give a harmonious construction of the Rules, the marks awarded in the interview and the performance appraisal reports should be considered only for assessing the suitability of the candidates and not to adjudge comparative merits of the candidates upon giving a go-bye to the principle of promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit.
The learned Counsel representing the private respondents also adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent bank.
In the instant case, the appellants have successfully passed the written test conducted under the Rules upon securing more than 40% marks. Therefore, for the purpose of granting promotion to the post of Scale-II officers, seniority should be the governing factor. None of the appellants has been found unfit to discharge the duties of the higher post on the basis of the interview or performance appraisal reports.
Therefore, the claims of the appellants for promotion to the posts of Scale-II officers should be reconsidered by the competent authority of the respondent bank strictly on the basis of seniority-cum-merit under the said 1998 Rules.
For the reasons discussed hereinbefore and specifically for non-complying with the provisions mentioned in Clause 2(d) of the Third Schedule of 1998 Rules, in the matter of granting promotion to the post of Scale-II officer strictly on the basis of 'seniority-cum-merit', the impugned order of promotion issued earlier by the Chairman, Nadia Gramin Bank on 25th August, 2005 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is, therefore, quashed.
The authorities of the respondent bank are directed to undertake selection process de novo for promotion to the post of Scale-II officers from Scale-I officers following the principle of seniority-cum-merit as clearly mentioned in the 1998 Rules and explained hereinbefore.
Since a considerable time has already been elapsed, the authorities of the respondent bank are directed to complete the selection process de novo in the manner directed hereinabove at an early date but positively within a period of eight weeks from date.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, there will be no order as to costs.
Let urgent Xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates of the parties on completion of usual undertaking.
[PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, J.] TAPAN MUKHERJEE, J.
I agree [TAPAN MUKHERJEE, J.] LATER :
After pronouncement of the judgment, the learned Counsel of the respondent-bank as well as the private respondents prays for stay of the operation of the said judgment and order. We find no reason to grant such stay.
Accordingly, the prayer for stay is refused.
[PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, J.] [TAPAN MUKHERJEE, J.]