Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Maniklal Bhoumik & 4 Ors vs Bangiya Gramin Bikash Bank & Ors on 4 May, 2012
Author: Joymalya Bagchi
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi
(50) 04.05.2012 W. P. No. 19987 (W) of 2007
ah
Maniklal Bhoumik & 4 Ors.
-vs-
Bangiya Gramin Bikash Bank & Ors.
Mr. Supratick Syamal
... for the petitioners.
Mr. Lakshmi Kanta Gupta,
Mr. S. Banerjee
... for the respondents..
The writ petitioners were appointed as officers in Branch Manager cadres of Sagar Gramin Bank, presently known as Bangiya Gramin Bank, the respondent bank herein.
On or about 1988 the Central Government in terms of the provisions of the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976 framed rules known as Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1988). The said Rules, 1988, inter alia, provided that all posts available at a given point of time in the respondent bank shall have to be filled up by promotion from confirmed officers working in the bank in the junior cadre on the basis of seniority-cum-merit.
On or about 1989, Employees' Association and other Unions of Regional Rural Banks filed writ petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, challenging the discrimination in the salary structure in Regional Rural Banks with the scale of pay of employees of sponsored bank and demanded parity.
2Pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Government appointed National Industrial Tribunal to enquire into the aforesaid dispute.
On 30.04.1990, the National Industrial Tribunal pronounced its award, holding that the employees of Regional Rural Banks would be entitled to scale of pay, allowance and other benefits with officers and other employees at comparable level in corresponding posts in the sponsored banks and the matter was directed to be decided by the Central Government in consultation with such authorities as it may consider necessary.
In terms of the aforesaid award, the Central Government constituted a 'Equation Committee' to look into the aforesaid matter.
In the meantime, the petitioners were promoted to the post of Senior Managers/Area Managers and Officers, MMG Scale - II. The 'Equation Committee' after due deliberation and consultation with various parties, inter alia, recommended that the post of the Senior Manager/Area Manager was higher than that of Officers/Branch Manager and that the said posts needed to be reviewed in future at appropriate time. It also recommended that if the volume of business and/or operation of Regional Rural Banks grew substantially and if the number of branches are manned by MMG-II officers the post of Area Managers may be upgraded to the level of MMG-III officers. It concluded that for the time being pay 3 and allowance of Senior Manager, Area Manager were to be equated with officers at MMG Scale -II.
The Government appears to have accepted the recommendation of the Equation Committee.
The respondent bank due to increase in volume of business upgraded a number of branches as Scale -II branches in terms of the recommendation made by the sponsored bank. The respondent bank by a circular No. SAGAR/ADM/17/05 dated 6th June, 2005 approved the upgradation of eleven (11) posts of Senior Manager/Area Manager from Scale II to Scale III with effect from 26th February, 2002 and fixed the date of payment of officiating allowance with effect from 26th February, 2003.
Pursuant to such direction, the petitioners who were posted as Senior Managers/Area Managers MMG, Scale II started officiating in the MMG, Scale III posts.
While the petitioners were officiating in the aforesaid category, the respondent bank by circular No. SAGAR/ADM/PROM/03/44/06 dated 10th July, 2006 and corrigendum to circular No. SAGAR/ADM/PROM/03/44/06 dated 27th July, 2006 declared 18 vacancies for promotion of officers from MMG Scale II to MMG Scale III. In the said circular it was provided that the promotion shall be made amongst MMG Scale II officers who had completed a minimum of six years and nine months service in such capacity as on 31.03.2005. The said circular further provided that the 4 promotion shall be made on 'seniority-cum-merit' basis. The circular also provided that there shall have an interview of 25 marks and the minimum qualifying marks in the interview is 50 %.
The petitioners participated in the promotional process but were unsuccessful and they found that the private respondents who were junior in service to them were promoted superceding them.
Being aggrieved by such situation, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. In the instant writ petition, the petitioners, inter alia, have prayed for a direction upon the respondent bank to upgrade them to the post of Senior Manager/Area Manager MMG Scale III with effect from 26th February, 2002 in terms of the circular dated 6th June, 2005 and also to recall the promotion given to the private respondents to the post of MMG Scale III from MMG Scale II in supercession of the petitioners.
During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioners have taken out an applicatin being C.A. N. No. 10228 of 2010 praying for various reliefs in respect of a promotional process initiated pursuant to a subsequent circular No. P & A/402/2010 dated 25th November, 2010. No order has been passed on such application.
Mr. Syamal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were entitled to upgradation in terms of the circular dated 6th June, 2005. 5 However, upon persuasion from the Chairman of the respondent bank they agreed to participate in the promotional process for the self-same post. It is the contention of Mr. Syamal' s clients that the promotional process was contrary to the Rules, 1988 and the Government Order issued in relation thereto. He further submitted that the results of the interview was not published in the instant case and that the respondent bank unlawfully followed "seniority-cum-comparative assessment" process instead of seniority-cum-merit process to promote the private respondents who were junior to the petitioners.
Mr. Gupta, learned senior advocate, being ably assisted by Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the respondent bank, at the outset, submitted that the petitioners having participated in the promotional process cannot now turn around and challenge the same. That apart, they submitted that the petitioners had not obtained the minimum qualifying marks in the interview and hence, the question of considering them on 'seniority- cum-merit' basis did not arise at all in terms of the circular dated 10.07.2006. During the course of hearing, the learned senior counsel disclosed the result of the interview conducted by the respondent bank and admittedly, it appears that the petitioners had not secured the minimum qualifying marks as required under the said promotional process. Learned senior counsel appearing for 6 the respondents further submitted that having once availed of the promotional process, it did not lie in the mouth of the petitioners to seek upgradation to the promotional post itself in terms of the circular dated 06.06.2005 or otherwise.
I have considered the submissions of the parties and have gone through the materials on record. I have perused the result of the interview which has been submitted before this Court in the course of the hearing and a copy whereof has also been furnished to the writ petitioners. I find that the promotional process as formulated by the bank, inter alia, provided for promotion on 'seniority-cum-merit' basis of candidates who obtained minimum qualifying mark of 50% in the interview. A maximum of 25 marks had been allotted for the interview under the promotion process. Hence, the minimum qualifying mark required to be obtained was 12 ½ marks, that is, 50 % thereof, in order to remain in the race for promotion. However, from the result of the interview, I find that the petitioners got the following marks in the interview :-
Petitioner no. 1 - 8 marks, Petitioner no. 2 - 6 marks, Petitioner no. 3 - 8 marks, Petitioner no. 4 - 8 marks, Petitioner no. 5 - 8 marks.7
It is, therefore, clear that one of the petitioners had obtained minimum qualifying marks making them eligible for consideration for promotion under the aforesaid circular.
In view of the aforesaid facts, the challenge therein by the writ petitioners to the promotional process under the aforesaid circular dated 10th July, 2006 is bound to fail. The petitioners in fact had not been discriminated but had failed to remain in the zone of consideration for promotion under seniority-cum-merit basis since they failed to obtain minimum qualifying marks in the interview. The contention of the petitioners that the respondent bank illegally followed seniority-cum- comparative assessment process instead of seniority-cum- merit process and thereby deprived the petitioners' promotion is factually incorrect. The petitioners having failed to obtain the minimum qualifying marks, as aforesaid, could not be considered for promotion on the "seniority-cum-merit" basis. Further, I do not find that the promotional process as provided under the aforesaid circulars ran contrary to the Rules, 1988 and the Government Order issued in connection therewith inasmuch as the respondent bank, in fact, had followed seniority-cum-merit basis in the promotional process as stipulated in the aforesaid Rules. A challenge to the promotion of the private respondents under the said circular is, therefore, wholly without any merit and fails. 8
The next contention of the petitioners that they have ought to be upgraded in terms of the earlier circular dated 6th June, 2005 is also without any substance. The petitioners admittedly participated in the promotional process for promotion to MMG Scale III posts. By such conduct the petitioners are estopped from contending that they are entitled to upgradation by the earlier circular dated 6th June, 2005.
A feeble case is sought to be made out by the petitioners that they participated in the promotional process on the request of the Chairman of the respondent bank who assured them that the same was a mere formality and they would be automatically considered for promotion to Scale III.
No such assurance is evident from the terms of the circular dated 10th July, 2006 laying down the promotion scheme or from any contemporaneous document/communication exchanged between the petitioners and the Chairman of the respondent bank. Mere bald statement to that effect in the writ petition cannot wash away the conscious participation of the petitioners to the promotional process which clearly disentitles them, upon being unsuccessful, to turn around and claim that they had already been upgraded to the promotional post itself in terms of an earlier circular.
That apart, a reading of the said earlier circular dated 6th June, 2005 does not give an impression that the 9 petitioners had been permanently upgraded to the said promotional post but merely shows that they were officiating in such capacity. The prayer for upgradation of the petitioners to the said promotion is therefore wholly misconceived and accordingly, fails.
For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. The C.A.N. No. 10228 of 2010 praying for various interim reliefs also stands dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
The result of the interview submitted on behalf of the respondent bank is kept with the record. Urgent photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.
( Joymalya Bagchi, J. )