Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 753 (PAT)

Subhash Kumar Verma v. United Bank Of India

2003-07-24

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2003
Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for quashing the merit list of the candidates selected for promotion from Clerical Cadre to Officer Cadre (Junior Management Scale-1). Further prayer made by the petitioner is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to promote the petitioner to the Officer Cadre (Junior Management Scale-I). 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner besides respondents 4 and 5 and other employees of the United Bank of India, working in the Clerical Cadre were considered for promotion in the Clerical Cadre were considered for promotion in the officer cadre according to the promotion policy dated 7th of November, 1996. Clause 23 of the promotion policy dated 7th of November, 1996 contemplates constitution of an interview board. Clause 23 which is relevant for the purpose reads as follows: "The interview board will consist of 3 officerstwo from the Bank not below the rank of Scale-IV and one from B.S.R.B. or other nationalised Banks. The Board for interviewing the candidates appearing against reserved category of posts for SC/ST will include a member belonging to SC/ST community as nominated by the bank who will replace one official of the Bank in the Board." The interview board consisted of the following three members: 1. Shri Arun Kumar, Chief Regional Manager, C.R.M. Office, Abhay Bhavan, Frazer Road, Patna, Scale V Officer. 2. Shir Laxman Ram, Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Hatia Branch, Ranchi, Scale-Ill Officer. 3. Shri Gopal Prasad, Head of Department of Sociology (Retired) Patna College, Patna. B.S.R.B. nominee. One of the members of the interview board namely Sri Laxman Ram is an officer in Scale-Ill and belongs to Scheduled Caste community. 3 Petitioner as also other eligible candidates appeared before the interview board constituted as above. On the basis of the performance of the candidates in the written test and the interview merit list was prepared in which name of the petitioner does not find place but contains the names of respondents 5 and 6. According to the petitioner respondent no. 5 had suffered disqualification and as such ought not to have been included in the merit list. 4. According to the petitioner respondent no. 5 had suffered disqualification and as such ought not to have been included in the merit list. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents and in paragraph 7 thereof it has been stated that as there was no scheduled caste or scheduled tribe officer available in Scale-IV, the Bank had no option but to select a senior Scheduled Caste Officer of Scale-Ill. It has been further averred that the period of disqualification of respondent no. 5 has already come to an end and hence there was no impediment in his way for promotion to the higher post. 5. In reply to the counter affidavit promotion policy dated 25th January, 1999 has been brought on record and clause 23. which provides for constitution of the interview board reads as follows: "23. The interview Board will consist of 3 officers two from the Bank not below the rank of Scale-IV and one from the B.S.R.B. or other nationalised Banks. The Board for interviewing the candidates appearing against the reserved category of posts for SC/ST will include a member belonging to SC/ST community holding a post even one stage/scale higher than the post to which promotion is to be made as nominated by the Bank who will replace one official of the Bank in the Board." 6. From the pleading of the party it is evident that the promotion policy dated 7th of November, 1996 provides for constitution of an interview board of three officers, two belonging to the Bank not below the rank of scale-IV and one from B.S.R.B. or other nationalised banks. Said promotion policy also provides for replacement of one of the two members of the bank in case the interview board considers the candidature of the members of the reserved category, by a member belonging to SC/ST as nominated by the Bank. In the present case the interview board not only interviewed the members of the general category but has also interviewed the members of the reserved category for the posts reserved for them. However, the members of the reserved category in the interview board was not of scale IV. In the present case the interview board not only interviewed the members of the general category but has also interviewed the members of the reserved category for the posts reserved for them. However, the members of the reserved category in the interview board was not of scale IV. Clause 23 of the Promotion Policy dated 25th January, 1999 however makes a relaxation that a member belonging to the SC/ST community may be of one scale or one scale higher than the post to which promotion is to be made. It is further evident that the disqualification suffered by respondent no. 5 had come to an end much prior to inclusion of his name in the merit list and the petitioner appeared in the interview board without any protest. 7. Dr. Sada Nand Jha, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the interview board has not been constituted in accordance with the promotion policy dated 7.11.1996 and in that view of the matter merit list prepared on the basis of the recommendation made by such board is vitiated. He points out that respondent Bank cannot take recourse to the promotion policy dated 25.1.1999 to induct a Scheduled Caste member of scale-Ill. Mr. I. K. Sharan, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 submits that the scheduled caste/scheduled tribe officers of the rank of scale-lV was not available and in that view of the matter respondent-Bank had no option than to nominate senior most officer of scale-Ill in the interview board. He further points out that the petitioner appeared in the interview without any protest or murmur and ultimately when he has not been selected he cannot turn his head and question the very constitution of the interview board. He emphasises that the senior most class-Ill officer of the scheduled caste was not nominated in view of the provision made in the promotion policy of 1999 but on the doctrine of compulsion. 8. Having appreciated the rival submission I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Jha. Clause 23 of the Promotion Policy dated 7th November, 1996, inter alia, contemplates of constitution of an interview board consisting of three officers and out of them two have to be from the bank not below the rank of scale IV. 8. Having appreciated the rival submission I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Jha. Clause 23 of the Promotion Policy dated 7th November, 1996, inter alia, contemplates of constitution of an interview board consisting of three officers and out of them two have to be from the bank not below the rank of scale IV. However, said clause further provided that in case the interview board is interviewing for selection for reserved posts of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe same will include a member belonging to either of the community as nominated by the bank, in place of one official of the bank in the interview board. Thus the scale on which the member of reserved category to be nominated by the bank to replace the official of the bank in the interview board has not been stated. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the member of the reserved community has to be of the rank of scale-IV. 9. Even if I assume in favour of the petitioner that such a member ought to have been of the rank of scale-IV, that also does not advance the case of the petitioner. As stated earlier, the respondents in the counter affidavit have stated that senior most officers of the scheduled caste category of scale-IIl was nominated, as no officer belonging to the reserved category was available in scale IV. In such a situation the Bank had no option than to nominate senior most officer belonging to the reserved category of scale-Ill. 10. Further, petitioner appeared before the interview board without any protest and when he has not been selected, he has chosen to challenge the very constitution of the board which, in the facts of the present case, is not permissible. 11. As regards the grievance of promotion of respondent no. 5 it is worthwhile to mention here that period of disqualification came to an end much before his name was included in the merit list and in that view of the matter, I do not find any error in inclusion of his name in the merit list. 12. In the result, I do not find any merit in the application and it is, accordingly, dismissed. No. costs.