WP/10306/2002 of D HARINATHA REDDY Vs THE CHAIRMAN VENKATESWARA GR.BANK AND 2 OR on 29 December 2004

ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learnedcounsel appearing for the respondents.

The petitioner herein, who is the prospective candidate seeking promotion,filed this Writ Petition, inter alia, seeking for Mandamus directing the respondents toconsider his case for promotion from Scale-I to Scale-II Officer in accordance withthe Promotion Policy of the Bank issued in Circular No. 54/F.411/2001 in pursuanceof the written test conducted and also to declare the respondents 2 to 4 not entitledfor promotion.

The case of the petitioner in brief is that he has been appointed and workingas Scale I Officer with the respondents. In terms of the aforesaid Circular, theprocess was started by the respondents for filling up 23 vacancies. Accordingly, thepetitioner has been permitted to appear for the written test and also subsequentinterview, and successfully passed the same. However, with a view to avoid thepetitioner, the respondents have restricted the promotions only up to 20 posts,instead of 23, and further the respondents have given promotions to respondents 2to 4 herein who are all disqualified. Therefore, having regard to the fact that thepetitioner stands fairly well and also having faired well in both the written test andinterview, he is entitled to be promoted, whereas respondents 2 to 4 are disqualifiedsince they are convicted and the question of their consideration for promotion doesnot arise. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

Contesting the claim of the petitioner, it is submitted by the respondents that as notified, the vacancies were filled up and selection was made for all the 23 posts.But however, in regard to three candidates, since criminal cases were pending, theirnames were put in sealed cover awaiting the result of the criminal proceedings andtherefore, it cannot be said that they filled up of 20 posts, instead of 23 posts. Furtherit is also pointed out that the respondents 2 to 4 herein have been punished andhaving regard to the nature of the punishment and also expiry of the period of 3years from the date of conviction, the said disqualification no longer exists on thedate of written test and interview and therefore, their names were included rightlyand hence, there are no merits in the Writ Petition.

Conclusion

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that apparently inview of the specific averments as made in the counter affidavit, the case of thepetitioner is conveniently sought to be passed over by giving promotions to thepersons who are totally disqualified, and therefore, there is no justification for suchinclusion, especially, in view of the eligibility as contemplated in the promotionpolicy of the Bank dated 29.3.2001. Having regard to the reasons given in thecounter affidavit, especially the expiry of the appeal period, there is no impedimentin considering the case of the petitioner.

Considering the submissions made and also on perusal of the material, theonly question that calls for consideration is as to whether in the facts andcircumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled for promotion.

There is no dispute of the fact that the petitioner is working with therespondent Bank as Scale II Officer. In the process initiated for the purpose of givingeffect to the promotions to the Scale II, both in the written test and also in theinterview, the petitioner was permitted to appear and accordingly, the petitionerfaired well. However, the only grievance of the petitioner is that the names of therespondents 2 to 4 have not been included and if their names were included, hisname stands next for the purpose of consideration. Apart form that, it is also pointedout that it is only 20 posts, which have been filled up out of 23, which have beensought for promotion. Though the application is sought to be denied by therespondents herein, it is his case that other three names would not be announced inview of the pendency of the Criminal Case and their names were put in the sealedcover. In view of these circumstances, it is necessary to take into consideration theconditions imposed in the promotion policy dated 29[th] March 2001, which contemplates in Clause 3 pertaining to the eligibility, to the effect that for the purposeof reckoning the minimum service of eight years, the cut off date is 1[st] April of theyear in which the vacancy is expected to arise or has actually arisen. Further, incase of punishment or remand, the same cannot be a ground for rejection to suchperson. For the purpose of convenience Clause 3 and Clause 3(a) reads as follows:

“ 0 3 . Eligibility: Minimum of eight years of service as anOfficer/Field Supervisor in the Bank as on 1[st] April of the year inwhich the vacancy is expected to arise or has actually arisen. Thenumber of Officers to be considered for Promotions shall berestricted to three times the number of vacancies available forpromotion.

03(a). In the case of Officer who is awarded with a punishmentother than Reprimand, he will not be eligible for considering forpromotion for a period of three years from the date of punishment.In case the punishment given was a ‘Reprimand’, the Officer is noteligible for considering for promotion for one year from the date ofpunishment.”

From the above, it is evident that the said clauses which are relevant for thepurpose of dispute involved in this case in regard to the eligibility whichcontemplates 1[st] April of the year to be the cut off date for the purposes of eligibility.Further, in case of other punishment of reprimand, still his case can be considered.In this case, admittedly, the second respondent was punished on 30[th] March 1999and the period of three years would expire by 30[th] March 2002. In regard to thefourth respondent, he was punished on 20.11.1998 and his period of minimum threeyears would expire on 20.11.2001. Even taking into account the dates of written testand also the interview, both the respondents 2 and 4 would not be completingminimum period of three years. Further, in regard to the third respondent, he waspunished on 16.4.2002 with reprimand. Clause 3(a) states that even in case ofReprimand though his case has to be considered, but necessarily the authoritieshave to take into account the various other features. Where as in this case, nothingis stated as to with what feature the third respondent is weighed with for giving effectto the promotions. No specific allegation is made nor any particulars have beengiven in this regard. In view of the same, on the face of it, it has to be held that all thethree respondents viz., respondents 2 to 4 are virtually disqualified to be considered for the purpose of promotion. In a Decision reported in BHUPINDERPAL SINGHVS. STTE OF PUNJAB, the Supreme Court has laid down various principles andalso how such dates have to be reckoned. However, that was the case of freshappointment calling for the applications by way of advertisement, whereas, the caseon hand is not similar to that case. In this case, the date of notification and even thelast date of receipt of applications can have any amount of bearing on the issue. Inthe circumstances, it has to be held that the plea of the respondents 2 to 4 that theyhave completed three years even on the date of written test and interview cannot befound and even criminal cases have been pending against them and therefore, theirnames were put up in a sealed cover.

Be that as it may, once the respondents 2 to 4 are excluded, necessarilypetitioner’s claim comes next for the purpose of consideration. In view of the same,petitioner is entitled for consideration of promotion.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents are directed toconsider the case of the petitioner for the purpose of promotion from Scale-I to ScaleII Officer. No Costs.

ka

______________

29.12.2004

That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above.

Witness the Hon’ble Sri Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice on this Wednesday, TheTwenty Ninth Day of December Two Thousand and Four.

To

1. The Chairman, Sri Venkateswara Grameena Bank, Head Office at Chittoor.

2. Sri T.Gangadhara Rao, Manager, Chowdasamudram Branch,Chowdasamudram (RM), Chittoor District.Chowdasamudram (RM), Chittoor District.

3. Sri K. Haragopal Reddy, Manager, Santhavellore Branch, Varadayyapalem(RM) Chittoor District.(RM) Chittoor District.

4. Sri K.Srinivas, Recovery Officer, Area Officer, C/o Chittoor Branch, Chittoor.

5. 2 CD copies.