Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 285 (PAT)

Shambhu Dayal Pathak v. Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank

2014-02-24

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

body2014
ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Patna (Hereinafter referred to as the “Bank”) and its officials as well as learned counsel appearing for private Respondents Nos. 22, 25 and 29. 2. The petitioners seek a direction from this Court to the authorities of the Bank to cancel the entire exercise of promotion, from “Officer Scale-II” to “Officer Scale-III”, conducted pursuant to the circular dated 06.11.2009 bearing number 21/2009 issued by the Human Resources Development Department of the Bank. 3. Before I advert to the facts and points involved and raised in present case, it would be apt to have a bird’s eye view of the extant statutory provisions. The Regional Rural Bank (appointment and promotion of officials and others employees) Rules, 1998 (herein after referred to as the “Rules”) issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Govern the service condition of the officers under Regional Rural Banks. Rule 6 of the said Rules provides that all vacancies, determined under Rule 5 by the Banking Services Recruitment Board shall be filled up by promotion or direct recruitment in accordance with the provisions as contained in these Rules and Third Schedule to the said Rules. Third Schedule to the said Rules provides that appointment to the post of Scale III Officer shall be made by promotion only, on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. It further provides that officers holding post for seven years in Scale II on regular basis in the Regional Rural Bank shall be considered for promotion to Scale III post in that Bank. Clause 1(i) and 1(j) of the said Schedule lay down the selection process, which are relevant for the purpose of present adjudication and are accordingly quoted hereinbelow:- “1. (i) Number of candidates to be considered for promotion:- The number of candidates to be considered for promotion from Officer Scale II to Officer Scale III shall be restricted to three times the number of vacancies available for promotion. (j) Selection Process :- The selection shall be on the basis of performance in the interview and Performance Appraisal Reports for preceding five years as per the division of marks given below:- (A) Interview:- 25 marks The minimum qualifying marks in the interview are fifty percent. (j) Selection Process :- The selection shall be on the basis of performance in the interview and Performance Appraisal Reports for preceding five years as per the division of marks given below:- (A) Interview:- 25 marks The minimum qualifying marks in the interview are fifty percent. (B) Performance Appraisal Reports:- Performance appraisal Reports for the preceding five years shall be considered for the purpose of awarding marks for promotion. Total Marks:- 100 ” 4. It is the petitioner’s case that at the beginning of the process of selection to the post of Scale III Officer, the vacancy position was not disclosed which was imperative for the purpose of determining the zone of consideration. It is further case of the petitioners that as per Clause 1 (j)(A), 25 marks out of total 100 has been fixed for interview and it further contemplates that minimum qualifying marks for the interview are 50%. Thus for the purpose of being considered for promotion to the scale of III officer on seniority-cum-merit basis an aspirant is required to secure minimum of 12.5 marks in interview, failing which he would be out from the process of selection for such promotion. The petitioners admittedly are Scale II Officers and were eligible for promotion to the post of Scale III Officers. 5. The case of the petitioners is that there has been bungling in the process of selection, in the name of interview inasmuch as for filling up 29 vacancies, of Scale III Officers, 68 persons were found eligible and placed in the zone of consideration. Out of these 68 persons, 58 participated. The last candidate in the zone of consideration, who participated in the process of selection has been selected for promotion to the said post, superseding so many officers ranking senior in the seniority list. It has further been contended that it could not be just a coincidence that for filing up 29 vacancies, out of 60 candidates who participated, only 29 candidates scored qualifying marks (50% or above) in the interview and all such persons who qualified in the interview by scoring 50% marks or more have been selected for promotion. He has submitted that the result of the selection process smacks of high-handedness and manipulation. 6. He has submitted that the result of the selection process smacks of high-handedness and manipulation. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank on the other hand has submitted that these petitioners scored less than 50% marks in the interview, which is an admitted fact. He submits that the petitioner were rightly not considered for promotion as they could not secure the minimum qualifying marks prescribed under the statutory rules and the petitioners cannot make a grievance against their non-selection. 7. It has been stated in the counter affidavit on behalf of the Bank that subsequent to the selection under challenge, the Bank conducted two more selections in the year 2012 and 2013 for filling up the post of Scale III officers. All the petitioners participated in the selection process held in the year 2012. The petitioner No. 2 had retired by that time petitioners Nos. 1, 4, 7 and 8 again could not secure the minimum qualifying marks for interview and were therefore, not selected. Petitioners Nos. 3, 5, 6, 9 and 10 were declared successful and they have since been promoted to the post of Scale III officer. In the selection process conducted in the year 2013, the petitioner No. 1 and 7 did not participate, petitioner No. 4 retired in the meanwhile, no one selected. Petitioner No. 8 who participated in the selection process in the year 2013 again could not be selected because of his performance in the interview. 8. It has been submitted on behalf of the Bank as well as the private respondents that the marks awarded in course of interview cannot be questioned in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless it is found to be shocking to the conscience of the Court. The interview was conducted by the experts and no malafide has been alleged against any person holding the interview. 9. It has further been contended on behalf of the Respondents that there is no material to accept the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that there was manipulation and bungling in course of interview. The persons who are found eligible and who qualified in the interview by securing minimum qualification marks as per the Rules were selected against the vacancies available for the post of Scale III officers. The persons who are found eligible and who qualified in the interview by securing minimum qualification marks as per the Rules were selected against the vacancies available for the post of Scale III officers. It has been submitted that there is no reason for this Court to interfere with such process of selection. 10. From the pleadings on behalf of the parties and the submissions made on their behalf, it would appear that the main ground for challenge of the process of selection is that there has been irregularities / bungling or manipulation in the interview and Petitioners have been declared unsuccessful solely because they were awarded less marks than what was fixed as the minimum qualifying marks fixed for interview under the Rules. 11. However, I do not find any specific pleadings in support of alleged irregularity / manipulation. Albeit an interview can be challenged on the malafide, general or vague allegations will not suffice. I do not find any reason to accept the submission / stand that there had been any bungling or manipulation in the process of interview. 12. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this application. This application is accordingly dismissed.