Patna High Court - Orders
Jyoti Ranjan Mishra vs Bihar Keshtriya Gramin Bank &O on 16 May, 2014
Author: Chakradhari Sharan Singh
Bench: Sharan Singh, Chakradhari Sharan Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9358 of 2007
======================================================
1. Jyoti Ranjan Mishra Son Of Sri Suraj Narain Mishra, Resident Of
Village Kathar, P.S.- Surajgarha, District- Lakhisarai
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Bihar Keshtriya Gramin Bank Through The Chiarman-Cum-Managing
Director, Bhagat Chowk, Munger
2. The Board Of Directors, Bihar Keshtriya Gramin Bank, Bhagat Chowk,
Munger
3. Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Bihar Keshtriya Gramin Bank,
Bhagat Chowk, Munger
4. The General Manager, Bihar Keshtriya Gramin Bank, Bhagat Chowk,
Munger
5. Sri S.K. Patel Father'S Name Not Known To The Petitioner, Branch
Manager, Bihar Gramin Bank, Tilakpur Branch, Distt- Bhagalpur
6. Sri Neeraj Kumar, Father'S Name Not Known To The Petitioner, Branch
Manager, Bihar Gramin Bank, Jamalpur Branch, Distt- Munger
7. Sri P.K. Jha, Father'S Name Not Known To The Petitioner, Branch
Manager, Khaira Branch, Via- Jamui, Distt- Jamui
8. Sri Radha Kant Mishra Father'S Name Not Known To The Petitioner,
Officer, Regional Office, Bihar Gramin Bank, Near Bus Stand, Begusarai
9. Sri Rajesh Kumar Sinha, father's name not known to the petitioner,
Officer, Bihar Gramin Bank, Head Office, Maharani Hotel, Near Zeromile,
Begusarai, Bihar
.... .... Respondent/s
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhrub Mukherjee
Mr. Bimlendu Shekhar Thakur
Mr. Priyank Deepak
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI
SHARAN SINGH
C.A.V. ORDER
7 16-05-20141. The petitioner in the present application is aggrieved by a letter dated 30.5.2007, whereby the decision of the Board of Directors of Bihar Keshtriya Gramin Bank ( now Bihar Gramin Bank) in the 10th Board's meeting held on 15.5.2007 has been communicated, whereby the petitioner's appeal against his non- 2 promotion from Clerk cadre to Officer JMG Scale-I was rejected.
2. The challenge to the decision is primarily based on the ground that promotion modalities fixed by the Bank as on 14.8.2004 was substantially altered during the process of selection and thus, adversely affecting the petitioner's claim for promotion to JMG Scale-I.
3. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in Munger Keshtriya Gramin Bank which subsequently merged with other Regional Rural Banks and Bihar Keshtriya Gramin Bank was thus, reconstituted, consisting of other Regional Banks. The Bank had issued a notice dated 14.8.2004, inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment by promotion from Clerical cadre to 20 posts of Officer JNG Scale-I. Along with the said notice, promotion modalities were also enclosed. It was indicated in the said modalities that list of only those candidates who secured a minimum of 40% marks in the written test in English and Banking law, practice and procedure shall be prepared in order of seniority. It was further mentioned that there shall be no minimum qualifying marks in the interview. The petitioner being eligible for promotion applied accordingly. He appeared in the written examination and was declared qualified in the written examination in the result published on 2.4.2005. 3 The petitioner's name figured at serial no.22 of the said result which has been brought on record by way of Annexure-4 to the writ application. This is to be noted that the said result cannot be said to be merit list and it has been prepared apparently on the basis of roll number of the individual candidates.
4. On 17.5.2007 the Bank came out with a notice introducing certain amendment in promotion modality for effecting promotion from Subordinate staff to Clerk-cum-Cashier and from Clerk-cum-Cashier to JNG Scale-I. It mentioned that as per the promotion modalities minimum bench mark for written test was fixed as per the provisions under Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1998. However, in respect of other two areas i.e. P.A.R. and Interview, minimum bench mark could not be fixed in the said 1998 Rules and in the absence of Government guidelines, the Bank had earlier fixed total minimum bench mark ( cut off marks) as 40 and 50 in the parameters to be eligible for promotion from Clerical Cadre to Officer JMG Scale-I and from Subordinate Cadre to Clerical Cadre respectively. Taking into account the recommendations of the Sponsor Bank in light of some ruling of the Supreme Court, by amendment dated 17.5.2005 the Bank decided to bring down the cut off marks of 50% against these two 4 parameters i.e. PAR and interview to 40%.
5. On comparative reading of the promotion modality dated 14.8.2004 and amendment introduced vide notice dated 17.5.2005, it would appear that only change came to be introduced was that the Bank fixed 40% marks ( 4 out of 10) as minimum marks for PAR and 40% for the interview ( i.e. 8 out of 20 marks). The petitioner is said to have raised objection. He, however, appeared before the interview Board, on 20.8.2005. Result of interview and final selection was published which contained names of 17 persons against total advertised post of 20. The petitioner filed an appeal before the competent authority, alleging that persons at serial No.1 ( Respondent no.5), serial No.2 ( respondent No.6), Serial No.10 and serial No.28 had lost their seniority as they were unauthorizedly absent and should have been treated to be junior to the petitioner. He also alleged that criteria of selection i.e. fixing 40% marks in the written test instead of 50% during the process of selection was illegal and impermissible and that adversely affected the petitioner. The petitioner has emphasized that initially cut off marks for the written test was fixed as 50% which was brought down to 40% by amendment dated 17.5.2005.
6. The pleadings of the petitioner as against subsequent 5 change in modalities for promotion, as contained in paragraphs 15 and 20 of the writ application are being quoted hereinbelow:-
"15. That the petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal on 25.7.2005 before the Board of Directors. In the appeal he pointed out that the result of the written test has been published. The petitioner has wrongly been shown as serial No. 23. Serial Nos. 1,2,19 and 28 has lost their seniority as they were unauthorizedly absent and should be treated junior to the petitioner. The petitioner also pointed out that the three posts have been kept vacant ad most important factor that the changeable criteria which was initially fixed as 50% in the written test has been reduced during the process of promotion as 40% and in that the marks of interview has been added, this change is illegal and not permissible under the law and the same has adversely affected the petitioner."
20. That it is submitted that the respondents initially fixed the terms of selection by circular dated 14.8.2004 accordingly to which the cut off marks for promotion is 50% in the written test which during the process of selection on 17.5.2005 change as 40% mark including interview. Said change of criteria in course of selection/after the process of selection stated is not permissible under the law. The impugned order passed by the respondents on 30.5.2007 is wholly illegal and clearly shows that the same has been passed in mechanical manner and is a non speaking order as such fit to be quashed."
7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, stating that as per the promotion modality issued vide circular dated 14.8.2004, minimum of 40% marks each in English, and Banking law, practice and procedure was fixed for 6 qualifying the written test. However, no minimum qualifying marks were fixed for PAR and interview. Subsequently, vide circular dated 17.5.2005 promotion modalities were amended and minimum bench marks of 40% was fixed for interview and PAR. It has been stated that the petitioner had appeared before the Selection Committee and he secured the qualifying marks in interview as well as in PAR. A select list of successful candidates on the basis of seniority was prepared whereby promotion was effected to 16 candidates of general category and one each to candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes categories respectively. It has also been stated that out of 3 posts reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste category, only one post could be filled up and remaining post were carried over. Further, as per the averments in the counter affidavit, result of a candidate belonging to general category was kept in abeyance on account of a charge-sheet pending against him and the decision for filling up the said vacancies would be taken after the Board's decision on appeal of the concerned staff.
8. It has been categorically stated in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner was junior to all candidates promoted. It has also been stated that much before interview the candidates were intimated about the amendment in promotion 7 modality.
9. As regards the petitioner's claim of his seniority over certain candidates finally selected it has been stated in the counter affidavit that seniority list was published prior to initiation of the process of selection and the petitioner did not raise any objection to it.
10. The respondents have denied that qualifying marks for written test was finally fixed as 50%, in their counter affidavit.
11. The statement made in paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit that a seniority list was published prior to initiation of the process of selection and the petitioner never pointed out that his position in the seniority list was not correct, has not been denied by the petitioner. His claim therefore, that persons as mentioned in paragraph 15 of the writ application should be treated to be junior to the petitioner cannot be considered as he did not challenge the seniority list nor did he raise any objection during the process of promotion.
12. From the pleadings of the writ application it will appear that petitioner's case is entirely based on his contention that minimum qualifying marks for written test was fixed initially at 50% and it was subsequently brought down to 40% by way of amendment in the promotion policy on 17.5.2005. The plea in my 8 opinion, is wholly misconceived. From the circular dated 17.5.2005 itself it would appear that criteria fixing minimum bench marks for PAR and interview were prescribed and there was no alteration in the minimum qualifying marks earlier fixed for written test as per the earlier circular dated 14.8.2004.
13. Clause 14 of the Promotion modality dated 14.8.2004 clearly indicates that 40% marks was fixed as minimum qualifying marks for written test in English and Banking law, practice and procedure.
14. As has been indicated above, the petitioner qualified in the interview and PAR therefore, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to him because of the change in the promotion policy brought vide circular dated 17.,5.2005. In any view of the matter, candidates were made aware about the such changes and those changes certainly did not adversely affect the petitioner's case for promotion. The petitioner has brought on record an order of this Court dated 29.8.2007 passed in CWJC No. 3052 of 2005 (Sudhir Kumar Jha and anr vs. Samastipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and ors.). The said order of this Court would not favour the petitioner's case as it is not his case that he could not succeed because of introduction of minimum qualifying marks for interview. This Court in the said order held that promotion to 9 JMG Scale-I was required to be made on the basis of seniority- cum-merit. The petitioner on the other hand, in the present case claiming his promotion on the ground of his better merit. His case does not find any support from the ratio of the order of this Court in case of Sudhir Kumar Jha and anr,. (supra).
15. I find not merit in this application. This application is accordingly, dismissed.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) ArunKumar/-