Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 136 (PAT)

Chandradeo Singh v. Bhojpur-rohtas Gramin Bank

2001-02-14

RADHA MOHAN PRASAD

body2001
Judgment 1. The petitioner had filed an amendment application challenging the seniority list, contained in Annexure 10, insofar as it concerns those who were granted promotion later than him but have been conferred with notional seniority from a date prior to him, vide resolution of the Board of Directors dated 23.2.1999 contained in Annexure 8 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Bank and consequently placed above him in the impugned seniority list. The said amendment application was allowed, vide order dated 15.5.2000. The petitioner in this writ petition is, thus, in fact, aggrieved by the said decision of the Board of Directors of the Bank and the consequential fixation of seniority of the concerned respondents. 2. In short, the relevant facts are that initially the petitioner was junior to the concerned respondents. However, he was given out of turn promotion in the Middle Management Grade II (MMG II) on 3.12.1997. The concerned respondents had been promoted in the said Grade only on 1.1.1999, but by the said decision of the Board of Directors dated 23.2.1999, contained in Annexure B, they have been notionally given promotion from 1.4.1997 without any financial benefit as according to the Bank, vacancies were available on 1.4.1997 and prior thereto and that the process for their promotion was also started before that. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned decision of the Bank is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as the concerned respondents have been given notional promotion from the retrospective date only to give them seniority over the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, regulation 13 of the Bank provides that seniority of an officer or an employee of the Bank in a grade or scale shall be reckoned with reference to the date of his initial appointment on that grade or scale. In the present case, the petitioner was given MMG Grade II scale admittedly before the concerned respondents and as such, by virtue of the said regulation he became senior to them and acquired right of seniority against them, which is sought to be adversely affected by the impugned decision (Annexure B) and the gradation list (Annexure 10). . According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it will be hit by the provisions, contained in Article 14 of the Constitution also. 4. Mr. . According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it will be hit by the provisions, contained in Article 14 of the Constitution also. 4. Mr. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Bank, on the other hand, has submitted that the promotion granted to the petitioner was not in usual course. In fact, it was an accelerated promotion under the scheme of the Bank for grant of out of turn promotion, which provides that in case of Bank employees and customers/members of public who actively resist bank robberies and terrorists attacks on Banks, the Bank may consider a cash award not exceeding Rs. 50,000/-. In addition, Bank employees may be given an out of promotion, if he satisfies the minimum conditions of eligibility prescribed for direct recruits to the post, but without reference to the number of years of service rendered. It further provides that the employees not covered by the above criterion may be allowed three advance increments in their existing grade on permanent basis. It is, thus, contended by the learned counsel for the Bank that the said promotion was an accelerated one and the Apex Court in the case of Ajit Singh Januja V/s. State of Punjab, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 715 , though upheld the validity of "out of turn promotion" but, further held that on grant of regular promotion to seniors they will regain their seniority for the purpose of higher promotion. He referred to paragraph 16 from the said judgment, which reads as follows : "16. We respectfully concur with the view in Union of India vs. Virpai Singh Chauhan, that seniority between the reserved category candidates and general candidates in the promoted category shall continue to be governed by their panel position i.e. with reference to their inter se seniority in the lower grade. The rule of reservation gives accelerated promotion, but it does not give the accelerated "conseuential seniority" . If a Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe candidate is promoted earlier because of the rule of reservation/roster and his senior belonging to the general category is promoted later to that higher grade the general category candidate shall regain his seniority over such earlier promoted Scheduled Caste/Tribe candidate. If a Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe candidate is promoted earlier because of the rule of reservation/roster and his senior belonging to the general category is promoted later to that higher grade the general category candidate shall regain his seniority over such earlier promoted Scheduled Caste/Tribe candidate. As already pointed out above that when a Scheduled Caste/Tribe candidate is promoted earlier by applying the rule of reservation/roster against a post reserved for such Schedule Caste/Tribe candidate, in this process he does not supersede his seniors belonging to the general category. In this process there was no occasion to examine the merit of such Scheduled Caste/Tribe candidate vis-a-vis his seniors belonging to the general category. As such it will be only rational, just and proper to hold that when the general category candidate is promoted later from the lower grade to the higher grade, he will be considered senior to a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Tribe who had been given accelerated promotion against the post reserved for him. Whenever a question arises for filling up a post reserved for Scheduled Caste/Tribe candidate in a still higher grade then such candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste/Tribe shall be promoted first but when the consideration is in respect of promotion against the general category post in a still higher grade then the general category candidate who has been promoted later shall be considered senior and his case shall be considered first for promotion applying either principle of seniority-cum- merit or merit-cum-seniority. If this rule and procedure is not applied then result will be that majority of the posts in the higher grade shall be held at one stage by persons who have not only entered service on the basis of reservation and roster but have excluded the general category candidates from being promoted to the posts reserved for general category candidates merely on the ground of their initial accelerated promotions. This will not be consistent with the requirement or the spirit of Article 16(4) or Article 335 of the Constitution." 5. It is submitted by him that it is true that the said case was in regard to grant of accelerated promotion to a reserved category candidate by virtue of the rule/scheme applicable but the present case is also similar one where the scheme provides for accelerated out of turn promotion under certain circumstances as mentioned in the regulation. It is submitted by him that it is true that the said case was in regard to grant of accelerated promotion to a reserved category candidate by virtue of the rule/scheme applicable but the present case is also similar one where the scheme provides for accelerated out of turn promotion under certain circumstances as mentioned in the regulation. The Supreme Court in the said case has upheld the validity that when the general category candidate is promoted later from the lower grade to the higher grade, he will be considered senior to a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Tribe who had been given accelerated promotion against the post reserved for him. The respondent Bank in accordance with the said principle passed the resolution and fixed the seniority accordingly by the impugned Annexures B and 10 respectively. 6. This Court finds substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the Bank. The regulation, contained in Annexure 2, only provides for grant of accelerated out of turn promotion for the reasons mentioned therein but it does not provide for confirment of seniority over those who were senior to such promotees and got promotion later but in due course. It has rightly been submitted by the learned counsel for the Bank that there is hardly any difference between the two, namely, the principle where a person is granted accelerated promotion by virtue of the rules relating to reserved category and those who are entitled for grant of such accelerated promotion by virtue of rule/scheme for his actively resisting Bank robberies and terrorist attacks on Banks as the object behind both is to grant accelerated promotion and not that by virtue of such promotion, one will get accelerated seniority also, otherwise I have my doubts that such scheme will stand the test of Articles 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution of India. By such accelerated promotion one can be given accelerated monetary benefit by way of reward but confirment of seniority over others would amount to violation of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India inasmuch as a senior person will be deprived of his seniority only because he did not get such an opportunity to show his courage and interest in protecting the Bank. 7. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is, thus, summarily dismissed.