Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 104 (PAT)

Pankaj Kumar v. Punjab National Bank

2014-01-21

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

body2014
ORDER : Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-Punjab National Bank and its officials. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 10.05.2012 passed by the Chief Manager, Circle Office, Patna (H.R.D. Department), Punjab National Bank, the appellate authority whereby rejection of the petitioner’s appeal seeking promotion to the post of S.M.G. IV scale to M.M.G. III scale in the bank has been communicated. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 4530 of 2012 seeking the following reliefs: “I. To award 63 marks in written test, 12 marks in interview, 60 marks in performance and 10 marks in branch experience aggregating into total marks of 145. II. To promote from MMG-III to SMG IV with retrospective effect. III. To compensate for monetary loss with penal interest. IV. To compensate for the loss of further promotion which arises on account of delay on the part of the respondents in getting this writ petition disposed.” 3. The said writ application was disposed by an order dated 26.03.2012 with a direction to the appellate authority to consider the claim of the petitioner and decide the appeal in accordance with law. It is in this circumstance that pursuant to this Court’s order, the petitioner filed a representation on 03.04.2012 before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Punjab National Bank, New Delhi raising grievance that for the purpose of said promotion, in the process of selection he was not awarded marks which he deserved against written test, interview, performance and branch experience. He took the plea that he had in fact secured 63 marks in the written test, 12 marks in interview whereas assessment has been done treating the marks for written test to be 53 and marks for the interview to be 10. He also took the plea that his performance was not duly evaluated by the Selection Committee and was awarded 45.72 marks though he deserved more marks. He also took a plea that he was wrongly awarded zero marks against branch experience though he had branch experience for several years. Taking a plea that the petitioner could not have been blamed for lack of branch experience during last five years from the date of the petitioner’s consideration for such promotion as it was not within his choice to be posted at a branch or in the administration office. Taking a plea that the petitioner could not have been blamed for lack of branch experience during last five years from the date of the petitioner’s consideration for such promotion as it was not within his choice to be posted at a branch or in the administration office. It is in light of this Court’s order dated 26.03.2012 and the petitioner’s said representation dated 03.04.2012 that the impugned letter dated 10.05.2012 has been issued which reads thus:- “You had preferred an appeal against your non-approval of promotion to SMG Scale-IV. A three members Appeal Committee was constituted by the Appellate Authority at HO to look into the appeal. The appeal Committee, in its meeting, considered your overall performance and submitted its recommendations on the appeal to the Appellate Authority has rejected your appeal. This is for your information, please. ” 4. The letter dated 10.05.2012 communicating rejection of the petitioner’s appeal, cannot be said to be speaking as no reason has been assigned as to why the petitioner’s appeal / representation raising his claim as referred to did not find favour with the appellate authority or the appellate committee. This Court vide order dated 26.03.2012 had directed the appellate authority to consider the claim of the petitioner and decide. In such circumstance, it was incumbent upon the appellate authority to have passed a speaking order which must have reflected due application of mind and consideration of the petitioner’s appeal / representation, dealing with the points / grounds raised in such appeal / representation. 5. The impugned order dated 10.05.2012 (Annexure-1), in my opinion, cannot be sustained being non-speaking and unreasoned and is accordingly quashed. 6. The respondent-appellate authority is directed to pass an order afresh on the petitioner’s appeal / representation dealing with each and every point more particularly the claim that though the petitioner was in fact awarded 12 marks in the interview, how his marks in the interview taken to be 10. Appellate authority shall also be required to consider the petitioner’s claim with regard to lack of his branch experience. 7. It is observed that if the petitioner’s representation / appeal is finally decided in his favour and is granted such promotion as claimed by him, the authority shall be required to consider his claim for subsequent promotion which he may be found entitled to. 7. It is observed that if the petitioner’s representation / appeal is finally decided in his favour and is granted such promotion as claimed by him, the authority shall be required to consider his claim for subsequent promotion which he may be found entitled to. The final decision by the appellate authority in terms of the present order of this Court must be communicated to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-Bank has submitted that the reasons for non selection of the petitioner for the promotional post have been detailed in the counter affidavit. It is well settled law that a non-speaking order cannot be improved by filing affidavit in courts. The order itself must reflect the application of mind by the competent authority. 9. This application is allowed accordingly.