JUDGMENT
Parihar, J.
1. Since on similar set of facts common question of law been involved and similar relief has been claimed by the petitioners, at joint request of the parties, the above writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.
2. 18 Vacancies for the post of Senior Manager/Area Manager were determined by the respondent-The Hadoti Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Kota for the year 1994-95. Out of 18 vacancies, 13 vacancies were reserved for general category, 3 vacancies were reserved for Scheduled Castes category and 2 vacancies for Scheduled Tribes category.
3. The matter was referred to the Staff Selection Committee (for short “the Committee”) for making recommendations for promotion to the above posts. As per the criteria laid down by the respondent Bank, interviews were held by the Committee on 26.4.1995. Subsequently, on recommendations of the Committee, promotions were made accordingly vide order dated 1.6.1995. The petitioners and some of the aggrieved persons submitted an appeals against the denial of promotions to them, however, the same were dismissed by the Board of Directors. Hence, the present writ petitions, challenging the order of promotion as well as order passed by the Board of Directors, dismissing the respective appeals filed by the petitioners.
4. It has been alleged that promotions to the posts of Area Manager/Senior Manager in the respondent bank have to be made strictly on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, however, in the present case, the promotions have been made strictly as per merit and the seniority has been given a complete go-bye. In reply, it has been submitted that the promotions have been made as per the recommendations of the Committee strictly in accordance with relevant rules and criteria fixed by the Bank.
5. There is no dispute that the promotions are to be made on the basis of the provisions of the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Other Employees) Rules, 1988 (for short ‘the Rules of 1988). As per the Second Schedule, attached to the Rules of 1988, the posts of Area Managers/Senior Managers have also been included at item No. 7, which are reproduced hereasunder :-
“7. Area Managers or Senior Managers :
(a) Source of recruitment :
Hundred percent by promotion from amongst confirmed officers working in the bank. Promotions will be on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. If suitable officers are not available internally, these posts could be filled by taking temporarily officers of the sponsor banks and other banks or organisations on deputation.
(b) Qualifications and eligibility:
(i) A Graduate of recognised University or any equivalent qualifications recognised as such by Government of India, preference being given to Agriculture or Commerce or Economics Graduates.
(ii) Eight years service as an officer in the regional rural bank concerned. Provided that the Board may, with the prior approval of National Bank, relax the period of service by a period not exceeding two years. If suitable candidates of requisite experience are not available.
Note : The post of Area Manager and Senior Manager will be equivalent in rank and will be interchangeable.
(c) Mode of selection :
Interview and assessment of performance reports for the preceding three years period as officer for promotion.”
6. Nothing adverse have been placed on record against any of the petitioners and, admittedly, the respondents employees, who have been given promotion as per the recommendations of the Committee, are junior to the petitioners in the seniority list of the cadre of officers.
7. The respondents, in their reply, have given details of the criteria fixed by the respondent bank for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. the criteria, as adopted by the respondent bank as mentioned in the reply, is reproduced hereasun-der:-
“Seniority
-2 marks will be awarded for every completed year of service in the respective scale beyond the minimum length of service prescribed for that scale subject to maximum :
-4 marks will be given for each year of completed service respective scale as a Branch Manager in a rural area and 3 marks for service as a Branch Manager or accountant in other than rural areas subject to maximum :
20 Marks
Educational
Qualifications
Marks for Graduation
2
Post Graduation
2
CA, ICWA, MBA, Engg.
Degree
3
CAIIB Part-1
1
CAI1B Part-II
2
10
10 Marks
Performance of overall rating
30 Marks
for the past 3 years
Interview
30 Marks
Total
100 Marks”
8. It has also not been disputed that promotions in the present case have been made strictly as per merit prepared by the Committee as per the criteria referred to above and further there is no dispute that no minimum marks have been prescribed for qualifying for promotion in the above criteria.
9. The similar set of Rules i.e. Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotions of Officers and Other Employees) Rules, 1988 came for consideration before the . Supreme Court in the case of BV Sivaiah and Ors. v. K. Addanki Babu and Ors., 1998 (6) SCC 720. Enumerating the principles of ‘seniority-cum-merit’, the Supreme Court has held that while applying the principle of ‘seniority-cum- merit’ for the purpose of promotion, what is required to be considered is the inter se seniority of employees who are-eligible for consideration. Such seniority is normally determined on the basis of length of service, but as between employees appointed on the same date and having the same length of service, it is generally determined on the basis of placement in select list for appointment. Such determination of seniority confers certain rights and the principles of seniority-cum-merit gives effect to such rights flowing from seniority.
10. The Supreme Court has further held that the criteria of seniority-cum-merit in the matter of promotion postulates that given the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration, the senior even though less meritorious, shall have priority and a comparative assessment of merit is not required to be made. For assessing the minimum necessary merit, the competent authority can lay down the minimum standard that is required and also prescribe the mode of assessment of merit of the employee who is eligible for consideration for promotion. Such assessment can be made by assigning marks on the basis of appraisal of performance which in turn may be based on service record and interview and prescribing the minimum marks which would entitle a person to be promoted on the basis of seniority-cum-merit.
11. In the present case, admittedly, no minimum marks have been prescribed and all promotions have been made strictly on the basis of merit prepared by the Committee. A bare look on the criteria so adopted would show that there is more emphasis on merit than to that on seniority. The criteria of promotion as adopted by the respondent bank cannot be regarded as being in consonance with the principles of seniority-cum-merit as prescribed under the Rules of 1988 and as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the judgment referred to above. The respondent Bank ought to have prescribed some minimum standards or marks so as to adhered to the principles of seniorily-cum-merit.
12. After having given my thoughtful consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, since the basic principles of seniority-cum-merit have been given a complete go-bye, the promotions made in the present case cannot be upheld.
13. Accordingly, the above writ petitions are allowed. The impugned promotion order dated 1.6.1995, so far as respondents employees are concerned, are quashed and set aside. The respondent Bank is directed to reconsider the entire matter and, after prescribing reasonable minimum marks in the criteria so adopted by the Bank for promotion, as referred to above, a fresh list of selected candidates be prepared for promotions on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The whole exercise be made and necessary orders be passed within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is, however, made clear that if any of the petitioners are selected and given promotion, the date of promotion will relate back to the year for which the promotions are to be made and only notional pay fixation to the promoted post will be given till the date of promotion now to be given. It is also observed that if name of any of the respondents employees do not find place in the select list, they will accordingly be reverted to the lower post, however, no recovery of any kind shall be made for the period they had worked on the promotional post in the present matter.