Inder Dev vs U.C.O. Bank Etc on 20 November, 2025

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Inder Dev vs U.C.O. Bank Etc on 20 November, 2025

1. Prayer The petitioners through the instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking quashing of the impugned promotion of Respondents No. 5 to 15 as Clerks in UCO Bank, Punjab and Haryana including Chandigarh Zone,further directing Respondents No. 1 to 4 to consider the Petitioner's claim for promotion as Clerk and promote him accordingly, with consequential effect from the date persons with inferior claims were promoted, and grant such other relief as deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. Brief Facts The petitioner joined UCO Bank on 10.02.1984 as Peon-cum- Waterman and is presently working as Cash Peon at Faridabad. He belongs to the Scheduled Caste category and is also a physically handicapped person. His service record has remained consistently Good/Very Good. While in service, the petitioner passed Matriculation in May 1986 and Senior Secondary (10+2) in November 1991. Under the Promotion Policy Settlement dated 13.04.1988 1 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 29-11-2025 06:03:34 ::: CWP-3871-1998 (O&M) -2- (PPS-1988), promotions from subordinate cadre to clerical cadre are made through three channels prescribed in para 4.6(i), (ii), and (iii).

On 12.12.1996 the Bank issued Circular No. CHO/PAS/9/96 initiating a promotion process by clubbing vacancies of several past years into a single block of 182 vacancies. The petitioner, being eligible in all three promotional channels on account of his educational qualifications and length of service, applied for promotion.

However, vide promotions made effective from 09.08.1997, respondents No.5-15 were promoted from subordinate to clerical cadre, whereas the petitioner's name was not considered. He was not supplied any merit list, year-wise vacancy position, or reasons for his exclusion, despite two registered legal notices dated 03.09.1997 and 24.09.1997.

Aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3. Contentions On behalf of Petitioner Learned counsel argues that the petitioner was fully eligible for promotion under all three channels envisaged in para 4.6 of PPS-1988, having acquired Matriculation in 1986, Senior Secondary (10+2) in 1991, and possessing more than the requisite length of service; yet, the respondents illegally confined his case to Category-I alone despite there being no requirement in PPS-1988 for opting or limiting oneself to any single channel.

It is further submitted that the Bank acted in blatant violation of para 4.5 of PPS-1988 by clubbing vacancies of several years instead of declaring them year-wise every January, thereby enlarging the zone of consideration and severely prejudicing the petitioner who enjoyed a superior position in earlier years.



                                  2 of 7
               ::: Downloaded on - 29-11-2025 06:03:35 :::
 CWP-3871-1998 (O&M)                                                     -3-

Learned counsel emphasizes that the petitioner held higher educational qualifications and longer service than several persons ultimately selected, but his comparative merit was ignored without any justification. It is also urged that the petitioner, being a Scheduled Caste employee and a physically handicapped person, was entitled to reservation benefits under para 8.1 of PPS-1988 and Government of India directives, which the respondents failed to apply; the SC roster was mismanaged and reservation for physically handicapped employees was completely overlooked.

Counsel contends that repeated legal notices seeking vacancy statements, merit lists, and reasons for rejection were disregarded, reflecting a non-transparent and arbitrary process in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Lastly, the learned counsel submits that the objection regarding availability of an alternative remedy is untenable, as the matter involves long- standing violations of constitutional guarantees in promotion and warrants adjudication under the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

On behalf of Respondents Learned counsel for the respondents submits at the outset that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner has not availed the statutory alternative remedy provided under Clause 4.13 of the Promotion Policy Settlement for Workman Staff (PPS-1988). Under this clause, any candidate who participates in the promotion process but is not selected, and who feels that his case has not been properly dealt with, may prefer an appeal to the Chairman & Managing Director within 45 days of publication of the promotion results. Since the petitioner has admittedly not invoked this remedy, the writ petition is premature, not maintainable, and deserves 3 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 29-11-2025 06:03:35 ::: CWP-3871-1998 (O&M) -4- dismissal on this ground alone.

It is further argued that PPS-1988 prescribes three distinct channels of promotion:

• Category (i): BSRB-qualified candidates;

• Category (ii): Matriculate/SSLC candidates (with 2 years' service after passing);

• Category (iii): Non-Matriculate candidates, through a common All-India test.

The structure of PPS-1988 makes it clear that each employee falls under only one channel, depending on his educational qualification. Allowing simultaneous consideration under multiple channels would lead to confusion, overlapping, and distortion of the zone of consideration. Since the petitioner was an SC candidate possessing 10+2 qualification, he necessarily fell under Category (i), for which specific relaxations exist for SC/ST candidates. He could not be considered under Category (ii), which is reserved exclusively for Matriculates who do not qualify for Category(i).Thus, the petitioner was correctly assessed only under Category

(i).

It is submitted that vacancies were assessed and notified in accordance with the administrative exigencies and the provisions of PPS-1988 thus there is no illegal clubbing. The petitioner's assertion of prejudice is misconceived and unsupported by evidence.In response to the petitioner's claim that he acquired his 10+2 qualification in 1991, it is submitted that the certificate produced by the petitioner clearly shows he passed the said examination on 20.01.1992. His eligibility, therefore, cannot be back-dated.





                                   4 of 7
                ::: Downloaded on - 29-11-2025 06:03:35 :::
 CWP-3871-1998 (O&M)                                                      -5-

4.        Analysis

On a careful examination of the materials on record, the pleadings, and the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court makes the following analysis:

The preliminary objection regarding non-availment of the alternative remedy under Clause 4.13 of the Promotion Policy Settlement, 1988, cannot be sustained. Clause 4.13 provides for an internal administrative appeal to the Chairman & Managing Director within 45 days of the promotion result, which is an internal administrative mechanism and not a statutory right. Considering that the matter has remained pending since 1998, and that the petitioner has challenged the selection process on grounds of arbitrariness and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the doctrine of alternative remedy does not operate as a bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

The contention that the petitioner could apply only under a single promotional channel is inconsistent with the scheme of PPS-1988. The channels are framed as eligibility criteria, and not as mutually exclusive options to be elected by the employee. The petitioner, having acquired the higher secondary qualification in 1991, became eligible for Category-II in addition to Category-I. Restricting him to a single category despite clear eligibility under another channel constitutes a denial of equal opportunity and is manifestly arbitrary. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon pex court judgement titiled as "Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab 1999(7)SCC 209"

22. Article 14 and Article 16(1) are closely connected. They deal with individual rights of the person. Article 14 demands that the "State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws". Article 16(1) issues a positive command that "there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in the matters relating to employment or appointment to any office

5 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 29-11-2025 06:03:35 ::: CWP-3871-1998 (O&M) -6- under the State". It has been held repeatedly by this Court that sub- clause (1) of Article 16 is a facet of Article 14 and that it takes its roots from Article 14. The said sub-clause particularizes the generality in Article 14 and identifies, in a constitutional sense "equality opportunity" in matter of employment and appointment to any office under the State. The word "employment" being wider, there is no dispute that it takes within its fold, the aspect of promotions to posts above the stage of initial level of recruitment. Article 16(1) provides to every employee otherwise eligible for promotion or who comes within the zone of consideration, a fundamental right to be "considered" for promotion. Equal opportunity here means the right to be "considered" for promotion. If a person satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria but is not considered for promotion, then there will be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to be "considered" for promotion, which is his personal right.

"Promotion" based on equal opportunity and 'seniority' attached to such promotion are facets of fundamental right under Article 16(1) :

The respondents have admitted that vacancies of several years were clubbed, contrary to Para 4.5 of PPS-1988, which mandates declaration of vacancies year-wise every January. Clubbing of vacancies alters the seniority- based zone of consideration and prejudices candidates who would otherwise have been in a more advantageous position. Such action is contrary to the policy and vitiates the selection process.

With regard to reservation, the petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Caste and is also a physically handicapped person. It is admitted that no roster point was available for SC candidates in Category-I, yet the Bank has failed to explain why the roster was not applied across all channels or why PH reservation was ignored. Further, the Bank has not produced any records

6 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 29-11-2025 06:03:35 ::: CWP-3871-1998 (O&M) -7- despite repeated notices. In these circumstances, the Court draws an adverse inference against the employer, in line with settled principles of administrative law.

It is further noted that the Bank failed to provide vacancy charts, roster registers, or reasons for rejection. The absence of transparency in the decision-making process violates the principle of fairness and reasoned administrative action, which are essential requirements under law.

5. Conclusion Considering the petitioner's long wait of over two decades and the loss of fair promotional opportunity through no fault of his own, the Court directs that the respondents shall review and reconsider his promotion case for all channels for which he was eligible, ensuring proper application of Scheduled Caste and physically handicapped reservations. If, upon such review, the petitioner is found eligible, he shall be granted notional promotion from the date his immediate junior was promoted, with corresponding adjustment of his seniority and pensionary benefits.

In view of the above discussions, the petition stands allowed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed.


                                                       (SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
20.11.2025                                                  JUDGE
sham
                    Whether speaking/reasoned                 :Yes/No
                    Whether reportable                        :Yes/No




                                  7 of 7
              ::: Downloaded on - 29-11-2025 06:03:35 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court