IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5425 of 2011
=============================================
Arvind Kumar Sinha, s/o- Late Bisheshawar Prasad, r/o- Ram Sahay Lane,
P.s.- Sultanganj, Patna-800006.
…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Reserve Bank Of India, through its Governor, Central Office,
Mumbai.
2. The Executive Director, DAPM, Reserve Bank of India, Central
Office, Mumbai.
3. The Chief General Manager, H.R.D.D., Reserve Bank of India,
Central Office, Mumbai.
4. The Regional Director, Reserve Bank of India, Patna.
…. …. Respondent/s
=============================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha
For the Respondent/s : M/s Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Kaushal Kumar Jha
=============================================
7 18-10-2011 Petitioner questions the sustainability of order contained
in letter dated 22.6.2010 (Annexure-20) whereby his appeal was
considered and rejected. This application is also directed against
the order dated 7.1.2010 (Annexure-18) issued under the signature
of the respondent Deputy General Manager, Department of
Administration and Personnel Management, Reserve Bank of India
whereby his representation seeking out of turn promotion was
considered and rejected.
Petitioner having been appointed as Clerk Grade-II-cum-
Coin-Note Examiner Grade-II in the year 1984, claimed out of
turn promotion on the ground that he is a Chess player of
international repute and has represented Bihar at National level
2
and also India at international level. The Reserve Bank of India
(for short “R.B.I.”) has a staff promotion policy for out of turn
promotion/increments for outstanding Sports personnel circulated
vide Annexure-2. He made his claim for out of turn promotion in
accordance with the aforesaid promotion policy which was
considered and rejected. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, he
moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 14179 of 2003. This Court, by a
proceeding dated 7.8.2009 passed on the said writ petition
(Annexure-15), disposed of the said application whereby the order
rejecting his claim for out of turn promotion was set aside and the
concerned authority of the R.B.I. was directed to re-decide the
issue objectively by a speaking order. Relevant part of the order
reads as under:
“…… I am left with no option but to set aside the
decision of the Reserve Bank of India refusing to
give out of turn promotion to the petitioner on
grounds “exceptional achievement” in sports and
direct the Regional Director, who is the competent
authority or any authority, which is competent to
decide this issue within the Reserve Bank of India
to re-decide the issue objectively by a speaking
order. They may seek whatever clarification that
they require from the petitioner. I must clarify one
thing that merely because the petitioner has
already been promoted to the post to which he was
otherwise entitled as a out of turn promotion will
not deny petitioner out of turn promotion. If he is
granted the right of getting out of turn promotion
then the effect would be that a person promoted
would be deemed to be preponed in time to the
date of his entitlement”
3
Petitioner, thereafter, filed a representation on 21.8.2009
(Annexure-17). The said representation was considered and
disposed of by an order dated 7.1.2010 (Annexure-18) whereby
the claim for out of turn promotion was rejected. Aggrieved by the
aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a representation (Annexure-19)
before the respondent No. 1 which was considered and rejected.
Rejection of the representation was communicated to the petitioner
by letter dated 22.6.2010 (Annexure-20) issued under the signature
of the Manager, Personnel leading to filing of the present writ
petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the
provisions contained in the promotion policy (Annexure-2), he is
entitled to be considered for grant of out of turn promotion since
Chess finds mention in the annexures appended to Clause-2 of the
promotion policy. Relying on averments made in paragraph Nos. 4
and 5 of the writ petition, it is contended that since he has
represented the country as a playing member at various levels and
even at international tournaments, he is entitled to be considered
for grant of out of turn promotion.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
respondent R.B.I. to oppose the claim of the petitioner. It is
4
submitted that the promotion scheme as contained in Annexure-2
bestows certain privilege which has to be considered strictly in
terms of the provisions contained in the policy/scheme (Annexure-
2). Petitioner did not fulfill the criteria laid down in the above said
circular/scheme and as such his case was considered and rejected
after proper examination.
Since the claim of the petitioner is founded on the
circular/promotion policy/scheme as contained in H.R.D. circular
No. 4/99/2000 (Annexure-2), it is apt to quote relevant provisions
thereof as contained in Clause 2 under the caption “Out of Turn
Promotion” which read as under:
“An employee of the Bank who has rendered not less
than two years service in the Bank, may be
considered eligible for one out-of-turn promotion in
the employee’s entire career, if the employee fulfils
any one or more of the following conditions:-
(a) The employee has been awarded a
National Sports Award, such as Arjuna Award
or Rajiv Gandhi Khel-Ratna Award;
(b) The employee has represented the
country as a playing member or as a reserve
player in a game recognized by the Bank (listed
in the Annexure) in any of the international
tournaments; namely, the Olympics/Asian
Games/ Commonwealth Games/SAARC
Games/SAF Games/ World Cup
Tournaments/Champions Trophy Tournament or
in a Cricket Test/One-Day International Series.
(c) The employee has represented the State
as a playing member (i.e. having actually played
on the field) in a game recognized by the Bank
(listed in the Annexure) at the national level for
not less than five years and the employee or
5his/her team has, during these five years, won
two medals either as winner or as runners-up in
an individual or in a team event.”
From a bare perusal of Clause 2(b), it appears that only
those employee/candidate is entitled to be considered for out of
turn promotion who has represented the country as a playing
member or as a reserved player in a game recognized by the R.B.I.
in any of the international tournaments namely the
Olympics/Asian Games/ Commonwealth Games/SAARC
Games/SAF Games/ World Cup Tournaments/Champions Trophy
Tournament or in a Cricket Test/One-Day International series. It is
not the petitioner’s case that he represented the country as a
playing member or as a reserved player in any one of the aforesaid
games/tournaments.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that if that be
the case then inclusion of Chess in the list of recognized game(s)
would be redundant since Chess is not an event or game included
in the Olympics/Asian Games/ Commonwealth Games/SAARC
Games/SAF Games/ World Cup Tournaments/Champions Trophy
Tournament. Learned counsel for the respondent R.B.I., on the
other hand, submitted that a veteran in Chess selected for award
such as Arjuna Award or Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna Award would
be entitled to such out of turn promotion in terms of the provisions
6
contained in the out of turn promotion policy.
On a perusal of the order contained in Annexure-18, it
appears that claim of the petitioner for out of turn promotion has
been turned down on the ground that his participation in the
tournaments i.e. the Commonwealth Chess Championship is not
covered by the scheme. It also states that none of the other
achievements of the petitioner fulfill the requirement specified in
the circular (Annexure-2). If the petitioner raises a claim based on
the policy or scheme then such claim has to be considered strictly
in terms of the provisions contained therein. I have already noticed
that it is not the petitioner’s case that he was either awarded
Arjuna Award or Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna Award in Chess and/or
he represented the country as a playing member or as a reserved
player in any of the tournaments specified in Clause 2(b) of the
scheme/circular. It is further to be kept in focus that the policy as
such is not under challenge. Petitioner has, in fact, founded his
claim based on the aforesaid scheme (Annexure-2).
In view of the reasons aforenoted, in my view, the
application deserves to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Kishore K. Mandal, J)
PANKAJ KUMAR/-