Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Civil Writ Petition No. 18209 of 2010 Petitioners applied for promotion within the time stipulated, appeared in the written test on 9.8.2009 and qualified the same. They were called for interview, which was to be held on 29.10.2009. Before the interview could take place, circular No. 38/2009 dated 10.10.2009 was issued wherein it was stated that the sponsored Bank i.e. the Punjab National Bank has conveyed to respondent No.1-Bank a clarification given by National Bank of Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) Head Office Mumbai with regard to minimum qualifying marks for interview, according to which the Board of Directors of the Regional Rural Banks, if so decides, can fix a minimum reasonable benchmark for interview. In view of the clarification, the Board of Directors of the respondent- Bank fixed 40% of the 20 marks for interview i.e. 8 marks as minimum qualifying marks for the interview and in the case of SC/ST/PC/ XSM categories, the minimum qualifying marks were fixed at 35% of 20 marks i.e. 7 marks. Interview was held on 29.10.2009 but the petitioner's name did not figure in the select list issued on 30.10.2009. On enquiry, it was brought to his notice that as the petitioner did not obtain the minimum qualifying marks i.e. 8 in the interview, as per the circular dated 10.10.2009, he was not selected.

Sequence of events for adjudication of these objections would be essential. CWP No. 16205 of 2009 was filed in this Court on 21.10.2009 by the All Punjab Gramin Bank Employees Union and All Punjab Gramin Bank Association challenging the circular dated 10.10.2009 (impugned herein) interim order dated 23.10.2009 was passed by this Court allowing the respondent-Bank to continue with the process of promotion and the interview Schedule but final result be not declared till the next date of hearing, which was fixed as 8.12.2009. On the said date, the interim order was not extended and thereafter the result of the selection process was declared on 30.12.2009. At this stage, the petitioners in CWP No. 16205 of 2009 moved an application for withdrawal of the writ petition on the ground that the same has become infructuous, which was allowed vide order dated 19.8.2010. It would not be out of way to mention here that CWP No. 2485 of 2010 was filed on 8.2.2010, which came up for hearing before this Court on 11.2.2010, when a direction was issued to tag the records of CWP No. 16205 of 2009 to the office. On 25.2.2010 notice of motion was issued for 11.3.2010 and was ordered to be heard along with CWP No. 16205 of 2009. Thereafter the case was taken up for hearing with the said writ petition from time to time and on 19.8.2010, the application moved by the petitioners in CWP No. 16205 of 2009 was allowed and that writ petition disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. No decision was, thus, rendered by this Court on merits on the circular dated 10.10.2009. CWP No. 2495 of 2010 was kept alive by this Civil Writ Petition No. 18209 of 2010 Court and was not dismissed in the light of CWP No. 16205 of 2009. This was obviously done for the reason that matter was not decided on merit by this Court and in any case the Union had earlier approached this Court before the interview challenging the circular, impugned herein, and in the light of interim order dated 23.10.2009 passed by this Court in CWP No. 16205 of 2009, the petitioners participated in the interview, it cannot thus be said that the petitioners had accepted the criteria, which was now brought about to be introduced by fixing 40% as the minimum qualifying marks for interview by the respondent No.1-Bank vide its circular dated 10.10.2009. In the light of the above, the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the respondents i.e. Gireesh Kumar and others vs. Government of India and others (supra) would not be applicable to the case in hand.

That apart, the process of promotion was initiated vide letter dated 23.6.2009, according to which promotions were to be made in terms of the 1998, Rules which provide for seniority-cum-merit as the basis. The eligibility criteria was prescribed, mode of selection and process of selection was laid down i.e. written test, interview and Performance Appraisal Reports. Wherever minimum marks were required to be obtained, it was so specified. These were all in consonance with the 1998 Rules. The last date for submission of the applications was 10.7.2009. The written test was held on 9.8.2009 and the results were declared on 8.9.2009. Thereafter, vide Circular No. 38/2009 and Civil Writ Petition No. 18209 of 2010 37/2009 dated 10.10.2009, the criteria for selection process for promotion was changed by fixing 40% of the interview marks as minimum qualifying marks for interview i.e. out of 20 marks 8 marks for general category. The change, which has been brought about in the selection criteria, is at the fag end of the selection process for promotion, when the written test has already been held and the result was also declared but before the interview for promotion of Officers was to take place. This as already held was in violation of the statutory Rules governing the service. But still as the process has already been initiated in June, 2009 and was in midst of it, the said change could have not been brought about by the Bank. It is by now settled by the catena of judgments that the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced. Reference at this stage can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and others vs. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and others (supra). On this ground also the impugned circular dated 10.10.2009 cannot be sustained.

Now let me deal with the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the respondents.

In Rajendra Kumar Srivastava and others vs. Samyut Kshetriya Gramin Bank and others (Supra) criteria was not changed mid stream and the Rules did not provide anything and were silent about the marks in the interview, therefore, the criteria of 78% marks to be minimum marks fixed for considering a person eligible for promotion was upheld by the Allahabad High Court.

In the case of Ashwani Gupta vs. Union of India etc. (Supra) again the Rules were silent about the marks in interview and, therefore, fixing of 55 marks as minimum benchmarks for interview for promotion by the Bank was held to be not in violation of the principle of seniority-cum-merit. Further the criteria was laid down before the selection process was initiated.