JUDGMENT
1. The writ petitions have challenged the seniority list issued by the 1st respondent on 17-6-96 on the ground that the position of the petitioners is not correctly reflected in the seniority list- The petitioners submit that they were recruited as Branch Managers in JMGS-I in the respondent Bank. Petitioner No.1 was provisionally selected and appointed on 8-3-86 and placed on probation for a period of two years and was confirmed on 26-4-88. Since then he is working with the Bank. The second petitioner was recruited on 9-11 -85, he was placed on probation for two years and was confirmed on 9-11-87 and was also working since then. Both the petitioners were appointed after selection. It is submitted that when the selections were made, list of selected candidates was put up in Notice Board by the respondent Bank. Two separate lists were prepared, the SC Officers were shown separately and Non-SC Officers were shown separately. The first petitioner was shown at Serial No.5 whereas Petitioner No.2 was shown at serial No.1. Seniority list was issued on 17-6-96 and objections were invited. The Petitioner No.1 was shown at Serial No. 16 and second petitioner was shown at Serial No. 14. The petitioners filed objections, as according to them the seniority list was prepared incorrectly. It has been stated that the persons who were appointed on the same day as the petitioners were placed at higher place than the petitioners. It is stated that Mr. K. Narasimha Reddy was appointed with the first petitioner and was confirmed on the same day but he was shown at Serial No.7 whereas the 1st petitioner was shown at Serial No. 16. Secondly, Mr. G. Amarnath who was appointed on 2-01-87 and was confirmed on 3-1-89 was shown at Serial No.9. There are other instances given by the petitioner. It is further stated that even though they had given their detailed representation against the provisional seniority list the respondent Bank has rejected the same on 11-1-1997 therefore they have filed this writ petition.
2. Respondent No. 1 has filed a counter affidavit and also an additional counter affidavit. In their counter affidavit the respondents have stated that the first respondent Bank was established on 15-2-1985. The Board of Directors approved the empanelment of 28 Officers for appointment as Branch Managers during the first two years after the establishment of the Bank depending upon the opening of branches under licences issued by the Reserve Bank of India. After selections were made, appointment letters were issued to the successful candidates based upon the requirement of the Bank as and when new branches were opened. The Branch licensing policy of the Reserve Bank of India came to an end in 1985 and there was some delay in enunciating the new branch licensing policy. Consequently there were some uncertainity about permissions being received for opening of new branches from the Reserve Bank of India. Only a few licences on adhoc basis in October/November, 1985 had been granted to the respondent Bank. Therefore, all the persons selected could not be appointed in one group. Some persons were appointed in 1985 and after a gap of one year on getting 13 licences from Reserve Bank of India in November, 1986 the first respondent started issuing appointment letters to the selected candidates in a phased manner. Some of the candidates did not turn up and out of 28 candidates to whom appointment letters have been issued 17 respondend and were appointed based upon the Branch expansion. It is further submitted that 78 candidates appeared for interview for selection to the post of Branch Manager. Out of this 67 were from the general category and 11 from SC. Fourteen out of the first twenty three in the order of merit from the open category and three out of the first five from amongst Scheduled castes were selected for appointment All the three candidates belonging to the Scheduled castes scored lesser number of marks than the candidates even at Serial No.62 in the general category. So in the general merit the merit of the Scheduled castes candidates was below the
62nd candidate in the general category. So, all the selected candidates from general category had higher merit than of the candidates selected under the Scheduled caste category. But, because of Roaster points the scheduled castes candidates were offered the posts before the general category candidates. The general category candidates got their posts when the new branches were opened after the sanction was obtained from the Reserve Bank of India.
3. Now the point for consideration is, whether the seniority of the petitioners and the affected respondents is to be reckoned from the actual date of appointment or on the basis of merit which they obtained in the selection process. The respondents have further stated that the seniority list has been compiled in accordance with the Golconda Grameena Bank Staff Service Regulations and Regulation No. 13(2) of the said Regulations provides :-
“the inter se seniority of the Officers or employees directly recruited in a batch to any grade or scale shall be reckoned with reference to the rank allotted to them at the time of such recruitment.”
It is contended that in the selection process the merit of the petitioners was lowest, therefore although they got the job in preference to general category candidates because of the roaster points much before the candidates in the general category, in seniority they cannot rank over and above those candidates who had better merit than the petitioners. The respondents in this connection have relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan, 1995 (5) SLR 400. In this case the Supreme Court was interpreting a rule pertaining to the Railways. The rule was:
“subject, to the condition that seniority of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates in comparison to other candidates will continue to be governed by the panel position in the case of categories where training is not provided
and in accordance with the merit position in the examination where training is provided.”
While interpreting this rule the Supreme Court posed a question,’ ‘what did the circular/letter mean when it spoke of seniority being governed by the panel position ?” Then, the Court answered it,’ ‘In our opinion, it should mean the panel prepared by the selecting authority at the time of selection for Grade ‘C’. It is the seniority in this panel which must be reflected in each of the higher grades. This means that while the rule of reservation gives accelerated promotion, it does not give the accelerated or what may be called, the consequential seniority.”
4. After going through the principle laid down by the Supreme Court it becomes clear that it is immaterial that the posts were offered first to the petitioners than the other respondents. Had all the posts been available on the same day there would have been no dispute, but because of non availability of the posts after selection as the Reserve Bank of India had not granted licence the petitioners were offered the appointments first than the candidates in the general category because of reservation policy. But, it cannot be said that they will get the consequential benefits of seniority as well.
5. For these reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly
dismissed. No costs.