Suresh Kumar Verma vs Chittorgarh Sahakari Bhumi Vikas … on 26 March, 2009

                                    1

             S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1037/1997
  Suresh Kumar Verma     Vs.      Chittorgarh Sahakari Bhumi
                                  Vikas Bank Ltd. Chittorgarh & Anr.


               Date of Order            ::    26.03.2009


                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR

      Mr R.N. Upadhyaya, for the petitioner.
      Mr Vinay Kothari, for the respondent-Bank.
                                 ...


      As per the recommendation made by the Departmental Promotion

Committee, by an order dated 4.1.1997 the Secretary, Chittorgarh

Sahakari Bhumi Vikas Bank Ltd. Chittorgarh promoted respondent No.2

as Assistant Secretary. While challenging the same the contention of

learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per Rule 8 of the Sahakari

Bhumi Vikas Bank Chittorgarh Rules, 1990 (hereinafter to be referred to

as, `the Rules of 1990') the criteria prescribed for promotion to the post

of Assistant Secretary is seniority-cum-merit but the respondents

erroneously adopted the criteria of merit, and as such, promotion made

under the order impugned dated 4.1.1997 is bad. In alternative it is also

urged that even by adopting the criteria of merit it is the petitioner who

should have been given promotion as Assistant Secretary.




      Per contra, as per the respondent-bank the criteria prescribed for

promotion under Rule 8 of the Rules of 1990 is required to be read in

consonance with the eligibility prescribed under the Schedule I
                                      2

appended to the Rules aforesaid. It is pointed out by learned counsel

for the respondent-bank that under Rule 8 the criteria for promotion is

seniority-cum-merit       for selection and to make such selections the

criteria of merit is prescribed under the Schedule appended with the

Rules. It is asserted that the criteria of seniority-cum-merit is required

to be adopted only after making a selection on basis of merit among the

persons eligible to be considered for promotion. So far as alternative

argument of counsel for the petitioner is concerned it is urged that the

Departmental Promotion Committee considered service record of five

candidates who were in zone of consideration and on basis of service

record the respondent No.2 was found meritorious amongst all, and

therefore, his candidature was recommended for promotion to the post

of Assistant Secretary.




      Heard counsel for the parties.




      Rule 8 of the Rules of 1990 prescribes that, "For purposes of

recruitment to the category of employees for promotion, a selection

strictly on seniority cum merit shall be made from among all the persons

eligible for such promotion under the provisions of the service rules. The

list of such candidates working on the first day of calendar year will be

considered for promotion." Schedule 1, appended with the Rules of

1990, prescribes basic educational qualification, experience and other
                                     3

eligibilities necessary for recruitment by way of promotion as well as by

way of direct recruitment.   As per the Schedule aforesaid the eligibility

for promotion is "merit only" and promotion is required to be made

from among the Branch Secretaries, Supervisors and Accountants.




       Rule 8 and Schedule I appended to the Rules of 1990 prima facie

gives an impression that two contradictory criteria are prescribed for

making appointment on different posts by way of promotion. However,

on minute examination of the scheme of promotions the position

emerges is   quite different.   Rule 8, as a matter of fact, relates to

making selection strictly on basis of seniority-cum-merit.       Meaning

thereby, for making promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary at the

first instance a selection is required to be made from among the Branch

Secretaries, Supervisors and Accountants as per the criteria of seniority-

cum-merit. After making such selection merit of all the persons is

required to be assessed. The respondents, therefore, first selected the

persons from the pool of Accountants, Branch Secretaries and

Supervisors as per the criteria of seniority-cum-merit and then

considered their merit for promotion.      As such, while selecting the

persons for placement in zone of consideration the criteria given under

Rule 8 was adopted and to give promotion from among the persons

placed in zone of consideration, the criteria given under Schedule I was

adopted.
                                    4



      In view of whatever said above the respondents have adopted a

mode as per Rules, while making promotions to the post of Assistant

Secretary.




      I also do not find merit in the alternative argument advanced by

learned counsel for the petitioner that even by adopting the criteria of

merit the petitioner should have been promoted. The respondents in

para 21 of reply to the writ petition have specifically averred that

performance of the respondent No.2 was assessed as most meritorious,

and therefore, promotion was accorded to him. The contents of para 21

referred above deserves to be quoted below:

       "That the averments contained in para F/7 are totally
       irrelevant. It is submitted that the over-all performance
       of the petitioner was rated as satisfactory for the year
       1994-95. It is further submitted that out of the five
       years record, the petitioner had only one out-standing
       record and the remaining part of the petitioner's record
       was only satisfactory. As against this the performance
       of respondent No.2 for all the five years has been rated
       to be outstanding. As against this the petitioner has
       also suffered two punishments and looking to the record
       of five years the Departmental Promotion Committee
       recommended the candidature of respondent No.2 for
       promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary."




      From perusal of the averments referred above it is clear that the

respondent No.2 was rated outstanding      for five years where as the

petitioner's working was only satisfactory and he also suffered with
                                               5

          certain penalties. In view of that apparently I do not find any error in

          treating the respondent No.2 more meritorious vis a vis the petitioner.




                For the reasons stated above I do not find any merit in this

          petition for writ. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

                                                            (GOVIND MATHUR), J.

Jgoyal’