JUDGMENT 1. - In all these writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged the select list dated May 20, 1987 on the basis of which 9 persons are selected for promotion from the post of Manager to that of Area/Senior Manager in Shekhawati Gramin Bank. The petitioners have been serving as Manager in Shekhawati Gramin Bank and are confirmed in their appointments. & tentative seniority list of the officers/managers was issued by the Head of the respondents' Bank on June 30, 1984 and the petitioners have been assigned their seniority at different places mentioned in this list which is filed with the writ petitions and marked I. 2. The petitioners' case is that though the seniority list was not formerly finalised but for all practical purposes had been treated as such and the appointments/promotions etc. are made according to this list. The basis of preparation of this list was the order of preference/merit assigned to the candidates by the Selection Committee at the time of their initial selection. The petitioners' case then is that all these Gramin Banks are controlled by National Bank of Agriculture and Rural Development popularly known as NABARD, therefore, guidelines are being issued from time to time by NABARD for making appointments by promotion to the post of Area/Senior Manager and such guidelines were issued on December 31, 1984 in form of circulars. The respondent Bank in turn circulated the circular to all Branch Managers conveying the promotion policy where the norms were laid down. According to this circular the promotions were to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. Initially it was accepted that the promotions should be made in the year 1985 but they were deferred. According to the petitioners they were deliberately deferred to accommodate certain persons who had not completed the requisite experience of 8 years. The petitioners' case is that on May 19, 1987 and May 20, 1987 a meeting of the Staff Selection Committee was convened for considering the cases of the Managers for promotion to the post of Area/Senior Managers. This Selection Committee was headed by Shri R.N. Saran, the Chairman of the Bank. The result of the interview was declared on May 20, 1987 and affixed on the notice board. This Selection Committee was headed by Shri R.N. Saran, the Chairman of the Bank. The result of the interview was declared on May 20, 1987 and affixed on the notice board. According to this result 9 persons, namely, Chauthmal, Ummed Singh Udavat, Vijay Kumar Mathur, Prabhu Dayal Mathur, Arun Kumar Bhargava, A.R. Singh Shekhawat, Shiv Dayal Mathur, Babulal Rangrej and Krishna Gopal Antre were selected for promotions. It was mentioned therein that individual orders of the promotion are yet to be issued to them. The petitioners' grievance is that they are senior to the persons selected and ignoring them juniors have been selected for promotion and that, some of the selected candidates do not even have the experience of working as Branch Managers as they had always been working in the head office. The grievance of the petitioners is that the guidelines about seniority-cum-merit have been totally ignored. The petitioners have neither any adverse remark against them in their service records nor any punishment has been awarded to them nor any disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against them and for no justification they have been ignored in preference to the persons selected who are junior to them. This selection therefore, is illegal and void ab-initio and is further violative of the principle of seniority-cum-merit and Articles 14/16 of the Constitution of India. 3. The Bank in its reply admitted that critaria for promotion is seniority-cum-merit. The case of the Bank is that sponsoring Bank of the respondent is Punjab National Bank and when the Selection Committee was constituted it not only had the Chairman of the respondent Bank but other members of the Selection Committee, were nominee Directors of Government of India through NABARD, Reserve Bank of India, Punjab National Bank; and one nominee Director of the State of Rajasthan. It is submitted that the selections were made strictly on the principle of Seniority-cum-merit. However, it was not made on the basis of seniority alone. The Board of Directors in their meeting on October 24, 1986 laid down critarian for giving weightage to individual candidate for promotion to the post of Area/Senior Manager. According to the critaria fixed, the Board decided that weightage should be given to the candidates on the basis of length of service; confidential reports or last 3 years; additional qualification if they possessed, and their performance at the time of interview. According to the critaria fixed, the Board decided that weightage should be given to the candidates on the basis of length of service; confidential reports or last 3 years; additional qualification if they possessed, and their performance at the time of interview. It is submitted that the critaria fixed has stood the test of time as the sponsored Bank, i.e., Punjab National Bank for the purposes of promotion also follow the same. It is the case of the respondents that for carrying the responsibilities of senior post in the Bank several factors have to be taken into consideration and therefore, it is not only the annual performance report which can be the basis of judging the merit along with seniority. The Bank's case is that selections have been made on scientific mathematical basis and the promotions have not been recommended on extraneous circumstances or to bestow favour upon the selected candidates. A high power Selection Committee had been constituted for the purpose of making recommendations and specific critarias have been fixed and all the candidates have been judged in accordance with the same. The petitioners had also taken chance and appeared for interview before the Selection Committee. When they did not succeed and compete in merit despite their seniority it cannot be said to be a ground for challenging the selections. It is submitted that all the candidates qualified for promotion were called for interview on 19th and 20th and they were selected strictly in accordance with the principles of seniority-cum-merit. It is submitted that instructions issued by NABARD were not at all ignored and what was done was that in order to be fair to all the candidates. Criterion for giving weightage to each individual for his promotion were laid down and finalised and thereafter selections for promotions have been made. The submission of the Bank is that even a perusal of the list of selected candidates from the seniority list would show that all the 8 general candidates have been selected from the first 16 in order of seniority of which two are under suspension. This cannot be said that somebody from the bottam of the list had been taken out for the purposes of giving favours. This cannot be said that somebody from the bottam of the list had been taken out for the purposes of giving favours. It is submitted that in institutions like the Bank which are public dealing offices and where high efficiency is required to be maintained and with each higher post there is higher responsibility, it is all the more essential that some formula for consideration of the merit be also considered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is distinction between promotions on the basis of seniority cum merit and merit cum seniority and the promotions made in the instant case fall within the later category because senior persons have been ignored and juniors have been promoted in the name of merits. It is submitted that comparative merit is not required to be looked into when the promotions are made on the basis of seniority cum merits. The only thing which has to be seen by the Promotion Committee is that there are no adverse entries in the confidential reports of the candidates and his performance is not bad. Learned counsel placed reliance on a circular of NABARD dated December 1, 1987, issued to the Chairman of the Regional Rural Banks. According to this circular for the purpose of promotion on the basis of seniority cum merit it is observed that this rule envisaged promotion by seniority which one consideration to minimum merit fitness prescribed. Fitness of the employee is that there is nothing against an officer, no disciplinary action is pending against him and none is contemplated. Another thing to be seen is that officer has neither been reprimanded nor any adverse remarks have been conveyed to him in the reasonable recent post as the promotions are meant to be made on these considerations alone. It is therefore, submitted that the critaria laid down by the Selection Committee in the instant case, where a formula has been involved wherein even personal interviews have been kept for 30 marks, is obviously to deprive comparatively lesser meritorious persons despite there being senior. It is submitted that the modalities fixed in the meeting dated 24.10.1986, 15 marks have been allotted for the merits of which, 30 have been fixed for work and behaviour, 5 for higher educational qualification and 15 for personal interview. It is submitted that the modalities fixed in the meeting dated 24.10.1986, 15 marks have been allotted for the merits of which, 30 have been fixed for work and behaviour, 5 for higher educational qualification and 15 for personal interview. It is submitted that judging the candidates by the aforesaid standard clearly amounts to selection on merits rather than on seniority cum merit or at the best merit cum seniority and therefore, selections made on 20.5.1987 deserve to be quashed. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision : Dr. (Miss) Shanti Arora v. University of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2710/85, decided on 15.5.1985 . Learned counsel has also placed reliance on observations made in State of Kerala v. NM Thornus & Ors., AIR 1976 SC 490 . 5. The learned counsel for the respondents Bank, Mr. Mehta and Mr. Ajay Rastogi and Mr. Ajeet Bhandari, submitted that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel Shanti Arora's case has been referred in the judgment by the Division Bench of this Court and does not hold the field. State of Kerala and another v. N.M. Thomas and others: AIR 1976 SC 490 has also been considered while reversing the Single Bench decision in D.B. Civil Appeal No. 214/85, Dr. (Mrs.) Pratibha Jain v. University of Rajasthan and others connected with D.B. Special Appeal No. 222/85, University of Rajasthan v. Shanti Arora . It is submitted by the learned counsel that in case all the promotions are to be made without looking-into the minimum merits, then promotions would be made only on the basis of seniority and the word 'Merit' would become redundant. It is submitted that in order to determine the merit something more than seniority and absence of adverse remarks or disciplinary proceedings have to be looked into. It is submitted that only thing is that there must be a wooden rule and criteria laid down and each of the candidates considered must be considered in that light alone. It is submitted that merits have to be looked into keeping in the status of the post to which the promotions are to be made. It is submitted that only thing is that there must be a wooden rule and criteria laid down and each of the candidates considered must be considered in that light alone. It is submitted that merits have to be looked into keeping in the status of the post to which the promotions are to be made. It is submitted that in banking companies one has to be very cautious in making the promotions and various aspects of the person qualified to be promoted have to be looked into and for this and in view it was thought proper to lay down the modalities and promotions have been made strictly according to the norms laid down and keeping the seniority uppermost in mind and it is apparent from, the select list also that fair selections have been made. Learned counsel has relied upon the aforesaid judgment in Dr. Pratibha Jain and few other cases which I have gone through and need not mention for the sake of brevity as that has hardly any relevance after the decision of the Kerala High Court in North Malabar Gramin Bank Officers, which is quoted in detail hereinafter. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and have gone through the law cited by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. At the outset it may be mentioned that there is very small controversy in the case as to whether according to criteria fixed for promotions i.e., seniority-cum-merit, whether merits could be considered as mentioned in the resolution of the Board, dated 24.10.1986 wherein different, marks have been kept for different purposes or that same should have been done in the light of circular issued by NABARD on 1.12.87. There is no dispute between the parties that promotions from the post of Managers to the post of Area/Senior Managers in Regional Rural Banks is done 100% by promotions. There is no dispute between the parties that promotions from the post of Managers to the post of Area/Senior Managers in Regional Rural Banks is done 100% by promotions. The Board of Directors of Shekliawati Grameen Bank on 24.10.1986 while deciding to creat post of Area/Senior Managers laid down certain modalities which are as under: fnukad 24-10-86 dks gqbZ funs'kd eaMy dh cSBd ds lEcU/k dk;Zo`r dk lkj & la{ksi 8- inksUufr fofr %& vf/kdkjh ls ofj"B izcU/kd@,fj;k izcU/kd 1- jk"V~h; cSad ds funsZ'kkuqlkj ofj"B izcU/kd@,fj;k izcU/kd ds in l`ftr fd;s tkus pkfg,A 2- inksUufr ofj"Brk de ;ksX;rk ( lhfu;ksfjVh de esfjV ) ds vk/kkj ij gksxhA 3- ;ksX;rk@ik=rk %& 1- ekU;rk izkIr fo'o fo|ky; ds Lukrd@d`f"k @ okf.kT;@vFkZ'kkL= ds Lukrdksa dks& izkFkfedrkA 2- ukckMZ ds funsZ'kd ds vuqlkj de ls de vkB o"kZ dh vf/kdkjh in ij lsok vfuok;Z gSA 4- p;u lfefr ds }kjk O;fDrxr lk{kkRdkj fy;k tkosxkA 5- ofj"B izcU/kdksa dks vf/kdkjh ds osrueku ij izkIr gksus okys osru ds lkFk #i;s 75@& izfrekg fo'ks"k osru fn;k tkosxkA lk{kkRdkj ,oa vU; ;ksX;rk ds 50 vad fu/kkZfjr gksxsA ftudk fooj.k fuEukuqlkj gS%& ( d ) dk;Z ,oa O;ogkj vkfnA ( 20$10 dqy 30 vad ) 1- lsok dkygsrq 10 vad fu/kkZfjr gksaxs rFkk izR;sd o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ djus ij ,d vad fn;k tk;sxkA 2- xksiuh; fjiksVZ ds ewY;kdau gsrq 20 vad fu/kkZfjr gksaxsA xksiuh; fjiksVZ ds fuEukafdr inksa ij fopkj fd;k tkosxkA cSad LVksj dk Kku % dk;Z dk Lrj mifLFkfr] le; dh ikcUnh] xzkgd lsok] vkpj.k ,oa O;ogkj pwafd orZeku esa xksiuh; fjiksVZ ds izk:i esa mijksDr en Li"V ugha gS] vr% xr rhu o"kksZ dh xksiuh; fjiksVZ dk ldy ewY;akdu egkizcU/kd djsaxs rFkk v/;{k tkap dj p;u lfefr dks izLrqr djsaxsA vadks dk fuEukuqlkj fn;k tkosxk % 1- detksj ( iqvj ) &3 2- larks"ktud ( lsfVlQsDVjh ) &6 3- vPNk ( xqM ) &9 4- cgqr vPNk ( oSjh xqM ) &15 5- vlk/kkj.k ( mRd`"V ) &20 vkmVLVsfMax de ls de 6 vad izkIr djus vko';d gksaxsA ( [k ) 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ,oa vfrfjDr ;ksX;rk,a ( vf/kdre 5 ) vad 1- 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk,a %& L=krd & 'kqU; L=krdksRrj & 2 vf/kdre 5 vad fn;s tk ldsaxsA 3- vU; ;ksX;rk,a % ,y0,y0ch0&2 lh0,0vkbZ0vkbZ ch0&2 izFke Hkkx lh0,0vkbZ0vkbZ0ch0&3 ( nwljk Hkkx ) ( x ) lk{kkRdkj ( vf/kdre 15 vad ) lk{kkRdkj esa U;qure 8 vad izkIr djus vko';d gksaxsA mijksDr d- [k- ,oa x- esa dqy feykdj 25 vad izkIr djus vko';d gksaxsA 8. A perusal-of the aforesaid guidelines prescribed, it is apparent that the Board has prescribed the marks with mathematical precision except that it kept 15 marks for interview purposes for which it could be said that it may lead to a wide discretion to the members of the Selection Committee to ignore the senior person. It appears that when the guidelines were framed the NABARD thereafter issued the circular dated 1.12.87 which reads as under:- "Promotion of Managers to the posts of Area/Senior Managers in Regional Rural Banks: Please refer to our circular letter IDD. RRB. NO. C- 62/316(Gen)/84-85 dated 31 December 1984 regarding appointments to the posts of Area Managers and Senior Managers. The matter has been examined by us in consultation with Government of India and have to advise that the posts of Area Managers/Senior Managers are promotional posts to be filled up by 100% promotion from only one source and non-selection rule of seniority-cum-merit has to be applied. This rule envisages promotion by seniority with due considerations to minimum merit/fitness prescribed. Fitness implies that there is nothing against an officer; no disciplinary action is pending against him and none is contemplated. The officer has neither been reprimanded nor any adverse remarks have been conveyed to him in the reasonable recent past. The promotions are meant to be made on the above mentioned considerations only. In other words, if a Manager satisfies the qualifications and eligibility criteria and there is nothing adverse against him, his due promotion should not be denied to him. Similar procedure may be followed in case of promotions from Jr. Clerks to Sr. Clerks and internal promotions to Field Supervisors and Managers posts. You may, therefore, review the promotions made so far to ensure that there are no supersessions unless warranted in the light of the above guidelines". 9. However, it would be relevant to mention that after this circular another circular had been issued on 10.2.1986 explaining the aforesaid circular wherein it as been mentioned that, "it may however be clarified that guidelines contained n the above circular cannot be interpreted to be that promotions would be automatically without any screening whatsoever. The Management of R.R. Bs. are not precluded from making objective assessment of one officers/employees potential for considering their suitability for promotion". Thus, the guidelines relied upon the petitioner stands superceded. The Management of R.R. Bs. are not precluded from making objective assessment of one officers/employees potential for considering their suitability for promotion". Thus, the guidelines relied upon the petitioner stands superceded. Even otherwise The Divisional Bench of this court has already held that if criteria for promotion is one of seniority-cum-merit, then comparative merit has to be assessed if the length of service is equal or outstanding junior is available for promotion. In State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioners their Lordships have held as under: "Principle of equality is applicable to employment at all stages and in all respects namely, initial recruitment, promotion, retirement, payment of pension and gratuity. With regard to promotion the normal principles are either merit-cum-seniority or seniority-cum-merit. Seniority-cum-merit means that give the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of the ad-ministration. The senior though less meritorious shall have priority". In Dr. Pratibha Jain's case the Division Bench of this court considered the difference between seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum-seniority and after considering the .various cases held that if criteria is one of seniority-cum-merit then comparative merit has to be assessed if the length of service is equal or outstanding junior is available for promotion. However, their Lordships were persuaded to take into consideration the reports of Pratibha Jain who was found to be highly meritorious on account of her Annual Performance Appraisal Report and academic work done. Their Lordships in fact, based their decision on State of Mysore v. C.R. Seesadari: AIR 1968 SC 1113 . A recent decision of the Kerala High Court has been placed on record by the petitioners in North Malabar Grameen Bank Officers Association, W.A. No. 604 of 1988 decided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Paripoornan and Mr. Justice D.J. Jagannadha Raju. The question before their Lordships was identical the same which is raised before me in this case and the same guidelines issued by NABARD was the subject matter of decision. Their Lordships framed the following questions for consideration : "1. Whether the Grarnin Bank is bound to follow the guidelines issued by the NABARD? 2. Whether the criteria and procedures evolved by the Grarnin Bank for selecting and promoting Managers as Area Manager/Senior Managers are arbitrary and in deviation of the guidelines issued by the NABARD? 3. Their Lordships framed the following questions for consideration : "1. Whether the Grarnin Bank is bound to follow the guidelines issued by the NABARD? 2. Whether the criteria and procedures evolved by the Grarnin Bank for selecting and promoting Managers as Area Manager/Senior Managers are arbitrary and in deviation of the guidelines issued by the NABARD? 3. Whether the principle of seniority-cum-merit indicated in the guidelines issued by the NABARD and subsequently clarified by it only contemplates selection on the basis of seniority-cum- suitability or whether it gives scope for selection by process of assessment of comparative merit? 4. What is the appropriate relief that has to be granted in case the Writ Appeals are allowed"? After detailed discussions and relying upon the various decisions including State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, AIR 1976 SC 490 quoted above, their Lordships answered the questions as under: "Answering the first question their Lordships held that NABARD is the appex authority and acts as the agent of the Central Government overseeing the functions of the Grameen Banks". In view of the statutory provisions their Lordships held that it is to contend that regional rural banks are not bound by the guidelines issued by the NABARD. Regarding question Nos. 2 and 3 their Lordships held as under:It should be remembered that exis. P6 and R1(d) were issued after the process of selection took place in May, 1987. At the time of making the selection in May, 1987, Ext. P1 issued by the NABARD, Ext. P2 circular issued by the Gramin Bank and Ext. R I (b) issued by the Grarnin Bank alone were in existence. Shri Rainachandran Nair appearing for the first respondent contends that as Ext. P6 and Ext. R1(d) were issued subsequent to the selection process in May, 1987, the selection made in May, 1987 cannot be struck down on the ground that the guidelines issued by the NABARD are not followed by the Gramin Bank. He contends that even under Ext. P1, it is open to the Gramin Bank to have a selection process and a screening. That is what exactly has been done by issuing Exts. P2 and R1(b). It is true that the Gramin Bank mentions in Ext. P2 as well as in Ext. R1(b) that it is following the guidelines issued by the NABARD in Ext. P1. P1, it is open to the Gramin Bank to have a selection process and a screening. That is what exactly has been done by issuing Exts. P2 and R1(b). It is true that the Gramin Bank mentions in Ext. P2 as well as in Ext. R1(b) that it is following the guidelines issued by the NABARD in Ext. P1. But in effect, it has deviated from what was prescribed by the NABARD in Ext. P.1. Instead of conducting the selection on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, the Gramin Bank adopted the process of selection on the basis of merit-cum-seniority, and for which it devised a procedure of assessment of comparative merit, which was not contemplated. It may be pointed out that even according to Ex. P1 it is open to the Gramin Bank to consider the claims in strict accordance which seniority and eliminate those people who are not suitable. The process of screening should be confined to eliminating the unsuitable candidates and not for selecting the more meritorious of the candidates. It should also be remembered that while the criterion for posts of Area Managers/Senior Managers is on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. Ex P1 itself lays down the criterion of merit only for appointment to the post of General Managers. The guidelines never contemplated assessment of comparative merit. This is clear from the fact that in the subsequent clarification given by the NABAI1D it clearly pointed out that it is a promotion post "on non-selection rule of seniority-cum-merit" and it also further says that the rule envisages promotion by seniority with due considerations to minimum merit/fitness. It also lays down that there should be no supersession unless warranted by adverse remarks, disciplinary action, etc. It clearly mentions that the promotions made should be reviewed on the basis of these clarifications, and see that there are no supersessions unless warranted in the light of the above guidelines. We find that though the guidelines indicated seniority-cum-merit basis, under the guise of implementing the guidelines the Gramin Bank resorts to applying the principle of "merit-cum-seniority" and the process of assessing comparative merit. What the Gramin Bank has done is not contemplated by the guidelines. In the context it may also be mentioned that even Ext. R1(d) the subsequent clarification does not indicate a different situation. What the Gramin Bank has done is not contemplated by the guidelines. In the context it may also be mentioned that even Ext. R1(d) the subsequent clarification does not indicate a different situation. ft only mentions that promotions are not to be given automatically, without any screening whatsoever and the management is entitled to make objective assessment to consider the suitability. This clearly indicates that the screening is meant to weed out people who are not suitable for the post. It is not meant to give a chance for junior people with more merit to supersede the seniors".10. The aforesaid decision of the Kerala High Court was challenged before their Lordships of the Supreme Court and the Special Leave Petition has been dismissed vide order, dated 7.3.1990. While dismissing the Special Leave Petition t heir Lordships observed as under:- "We make it clear that in making appointments of the appellant on seniority-cum-merit the merit of the petitioner shall be assessed objectively and with reference to his record and without regard to certain observations made by the High Court in para 28 of the impugned judgement". In para 28 their Lordships of the Kerala High Court had expressed their .strong displeasure on the conduct of the petitioner which was likely to prejudice his case when the matter was to be reconsidered by the selection Committee. The aforesaid case is fully applicable to the facts in the present case muchless rather is on similar fact and based on some circular. In view of the fact that I am in full agreement with the view expressed by the Kerala High Court I need not give more reasons in this case.11. Having relied upon the above quoted judgment of the Kerala High Court confirmed by the Supreme Court I have no hesitation in holding that the selected list dated 20.5.1987 is not in accordance with the guidelines given in the notification issued by NABARD and deserves to be quashed. This would not be taken to mean that the court has recommended the promotion of the petitioners. Their promotion would depend upon the consideration of their record by the Staff Selection Committee in accordance with the guidelines and the guidelines provided by the judgment quoted above.12. The result of the aforesaid discussions is that the select list prepared on 20.5.1987 is quashed. Their promotion would depend upon the consideration of their record by the Staff Selection Committee in accordance with the guidelines and the guidelines provided by the judgment quoted above.12. The result of the aforesaid discussions is that the select list prepared on 20.5.1987 is quashed. Respondent No. 1 is directed to conduct the fresh selections in accordance with the guidelines within four months till then the existing arrangement would continue. It is made clear that respondent No. I need not consider the cases of the candidates from reserved class afresh in view of the fact that they are the senior most candidates available from the reserved class and had been selected in accordance with the guidelines. In the circumstances of the case their will be no order as to cost.Writ Petition Allowed. *******