Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 178 (RAJ)

Babu Singh Inda v. State of Rajasthan

2018-01-16

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER : Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. In this writ petition filed by the petitioner Babu Singh Inda working on the post of Loan Supervisor in Jodhpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd, the petitioner is challenging the entry at S. No. 11 in Schedule-C of Promotion Rules, 2005 whereby the qualification of graduation is incorporated as minimum qualification for promotion as Assistant Executive Officer and prayed to quash the same and consider his case for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Officer in the bank with all consequential benefits. 2. As per the facts of the case, the petitioner was initially appointed as Samiti Manager in the year 1983 in Primary Agricultural Credit Society and further selected for the post of Loan Supervisor on the basis of his merit. In pursuance of selection undertaken by the respondent no. 3, which is Jodhpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., the appointment order was issued on 29.7.2008 and from that date he is working as Loan Supervisor. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that post of Loan Supervisor was to be filled in 100% by way of selection from Primary Agricultural Credit Society Managers (PACS Manager) with minimum qualification of Higher Secondary/Senior Higher Secondary or equivalent or such other qualification as may be prescribed in the PACS Manager Service Rules. The qualifying service required was 5 years as PACS Manager or 10 years in the case of Grade-A Officer. 4. As per contention of the petitioner for the purpose of promotion on the post of Assistant Executive Officer from Loan Supervisor, the notification was issued on 9.3.2005 in which it is provided that for promotion for the post of Assistant Executive Officer, the Loan Supervisor must possess the qualification of graduation. The petitioner was appointed as Loan Supervisor on 29.7.2008, therefore, obviously, he acquired experience of more than 5 years on the post of Loan Supervisor but before his appointment on 9.3.2005, notification was issued prescribing qualification for promotion on the post of Assistant Executive Officer from the post of Loan Supervisor but qualification of graduation was incorporated and due to said qualification, petitioner became ineligible for promotion because he is not possessing qualification of graduation. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that post of Bank Manager caries same pay scale and promotion on the post of Bank Manager is to be made from the post of Banking Assistant, but no qualification of graduation is prescribed for promotion on the post of Banking Manager. According to the petitioner the pay scale of both the posts are same. The petitioner has been asked to work as Bank Manager on number of occasions, therefore, order dated 9.3.2005 by which an amendment has been brought to consider only those Loan Supervisors for promotion, who are graduate is absolutely illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that due to qualification of graduation included in the notification dated 9.3.2005, the right of petitioner is curtailed because he is not possessing the qualification of graduation, but performing his duties of Loan Supervisor upon which he was appointed and sometime his services were utilized as Bank Manager also, therefore, the notification dated 9.3.2005 which restricts the promotion of Loan Supervisor to the post of Assistant Executive Officer on the basis of qualification of graduation is highly arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory, therefore, violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was appointed as Loan Supervisor being non-graduate in the year 2008 and working from last 8 years but for the reason that there cannot be any advancement in the career prospects, therefore, his career is on stack. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no reason to prescribe the qualification of graduation because on the post of Assistant Executive Officer, the services of Loan Supervisor is to be utilized due to his experience. It is also submitted that petitioner has been asked to work on higher post as Assistant Executive Officer/Bank Manager on ad hoc basis but not entitled for regular appointment on the post of Assistant Executive Officer from the post of Loan Supervisor only for the reason that he is not graduate. 8. It is also submitted that petitioner has been asked to work on higher post as Assistant Executive Officer/Bank Manager on ad hoc basis but not entitled for regular appointment on the post of Assistant Executive Officer from the post of Loan Supervisor only for the reason that he is not graduate. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per settled principle of law no such provision can be made so as to stagnate the career of an employee and in case of petitioner he is performing duties on the post of Loan Supervisor from last more than 9 years, but he has been debarred for promotion for all times to come due to insertion of qualification of graduate, therefore, it is a case in which qualification of graduation prescribed in the rules deserves to be quashed. The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that post of Bank Manager and Assistant Executive Officer are equivalent post, both caries same pay scale, but incumbent working as Banking Manager without qualification of graduation can be promoted as Bank Manager whereas the incumbent therefore working as Loan Supervisor being non-graduate cannot be considered for promotion on the higher post of Assistant Executive Officer, therefore, it is obvious that respondents are practicing discrimination while prescribing qualification of graduation in the rules for promotion on the post of Assistant Executive Officer. 9. The main ground to challenge said qualification of graduation is that it curtails right of the Loan Supervisors for promotion, therefore, it is vehemently argued that qualification of graduation prescribed for the post of Assistant Executive Officer in entry at S. No. 11 in Schedule - C of the Promotion Rules, 2005 may kindly be declared illegal being violative to the Constitution of India and the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Assistant Executive Officer in the bank with all consequential benefits from the date his juniors were granted promotion. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention towards the following judgments : (i) 1989 (SC) AIR 1972 (ii) 1988 (SC) AIR 1033 (iii) (1986) 4 SCC 617 (iv) 1989 (supp) 2 SCC 344 (v) (1975) 3 SCC 76 10. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention towards the following judgments : (i) 1989 (SC) AIR 1972 (ii) 1988 (SC) AIR 1033 (iii) (1986) 4 SCC 617 (iv) 1989 (supp) 2 SCC 344 (v) (1975) 3 SCC 76 10. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner we have perused the entire writ petition so also perused the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on 29.7.2008 after selection on the post of Loan Supervisor. On that date, Promotion Rules of 2005 in which qualification of graduation was already in existence for promotion on the post of Assistant Executive Officer, therefore, first of all it is required to be observed that no fresh qualification was prescribed by the respondent bank after appointment of the petitioner as Loan Supervisor for the post of Assistant Executive Officer. The qualification for promotion on the post of Assistant Executive Officer from the post of Loan Supervisor was very much in existence and the petitioner with open eyes accepted appointment on the post of Loan Supervisor as per the rules of 2005. 11. Admittedly, after acquiring experience of more than 5 years, the petitioner is raising his grievance with regard to educational qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Executive Officer in the bank on the ground that qualification of graduation for promotion on the post of Assistant Executive Officer is arbitrary and illegal because it restricts promotion avenues of the petitioner, which is not permissible under the law in view of the aforesaid judgment. It is true that in all the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner it is adjudicated by the Hon'ble Apex Court that opportunity of advancement has to be given to the employee because person is appointed not just for job but for whole career. In this case, the petitioner was initially appointed as Samiti Manager in the year 1983, thereafter, he was promoted on the post of Loan Supervisor after due selection and now he is raising voice with regard to the qualification for further promotion on the ground that as per the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court the opportunity of promotion is to be granted to the employee. 12. 12. In our opinion, after perusing the aforesaid judgments in the light of arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the firm opinion that there is adjudication by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to provide promotion avenues but it does not mean that unqualified persons may be appointed and no qualification can be prescribed by the employer for promotion. It is true that Loan Supervisor is required to perform its duties in the bank and after taking experience became entitled for promotion, but at the same time, it cannot be said that employer cannot prescribe any academic qualification for promotion on the higher post, which is Assistant Executive Officer. It is also worthwhile to observe that in none of the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner any adjudication is made by the Hon'ble Apex Court so as to relax the qualification for promotion or to delete the educational qualification prescribed for the post. The only adjudication is made that there must be promotion avenues to remove financial stagnation, therefore, none of the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner applies in the present controversy. 13. In our opinion, there is rational for prescribing qualification of graduation because in case of bank employee public money involves. The bank officers must be qualified and should have experience to perform their duties for utilizing the public money. Therefore, we are unable to accept the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that the qualification of graduation prescribed for promotion on the post of Assistant Executive Officer is arbitrary, illegal or unconstitutional. More so, it is the jurisdiction of the employer to prescribe qualification in consonance with the spirit of administration. The post of Assistant Executive Officer is higher than the post of Loan Supervisor and it carries more responsibility, therefore, it is felt necessary by the respondent bank to prescribe qualification of graduation for promotion on the post of Assistant Executive Officer. 14. In our opinion there is no illegality or violation of any provision of Constitution, therefore it is a case in which no interference is called for so as to quash the qualification of graduation which is prescribed in entry at S. No. 11 in Schedule-C of Promotion Rules, 2005. Consequently, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.