{"id":96981,"date":"2006-05-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-05-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harigovind-yadav-vs-rewa-sidhi-gramin-bank-ors-on-9-may-2006"},"modified":"2018-05-21T15:14:35","modified_gmt":"2018-05-21T09:44:35","slug":"harigovind-yadav-vs-rewa-sidhi-gramin-bank-ors-on-9-may-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harigovind-yadav-vs-rewa-sidhi-gramin-bank-ors-on-9-may-2006","title":{"rendered":"Harigovind Yadav vs Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank & Ors on 9 May, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Harigovind Yadav vs Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank & Ors on 9 May, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: Raveendran<\/div>\n
Bench: B N Srikrishna, R V Raveendran<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1153 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nHarigovind Yadav\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRewa Sidhi Gramin Bank & Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/05\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nB N Srikrishna & R V Raveendran\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
RAVEENDRAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appellant and the third Respondent are working as
\nclerk-cum-cashiers with the first respondent Bank (Rewa Sidhi
\nGramin Bank). The appellant is at serial No.9 and third
\nrespondent is at serial No.10 in the seniority list of senior clerks
\ncum cashiers published on 31.7.1988. There is no dispute that
\nthe third respondent is junior to appellant in the cadre of clerk-
\ncum-cashier.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe promotions of employees of the first Respondent
\nBank (for short ‘the Bank’) are governed by the Regional Rural
\nBanks (Appointment & Promotion of Officers and other
\nemployees) Rules, 1988 (for short ‘rules’) made by the Central
\nGovernment in exercise of the power conferred by Section 29
\nread with section 17 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976.
\nRule 5 provides that all vacancies shall be filled by deputation,
\npromotion or by direct recruitment in accordance with the
\nprovisions contained in the second Schedule. Rule 10 requires
\nthe Board of Directors of each Regional Rural Bank to
\nconstitute from time to time Staff Selection Committees in the
\nmanner provided therein for the purpose of selecting candidates
\nfor appointment by direct recruitment or promotion to the posts
\nreferred to in the second Schedule. It also requires the Staff
\nSelection Committee to follow the procedure as determined by
\nthe Board for selecting the candidates for appointment or
\npromotion in accordance with the guidelines issued by the
\nCentral Government from time to time.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tEntry 5 of the second Schedule to the Rules relates to
\nField Supervisors. It provides the source of recruitment as 50%
\nby direct recruitment and 50% by promotion on the basis of
\nseniority-cum-merit (from amongst confirmed senior clerk-
\ncum-cashiers, junior clerk-cum-cashiers, or clerk-cum-typists,
\nstenographers and steno typists with the prescribed minimum
\nperiods of service). For direct recruitment, the mode of
\nselection is ‘written test and interview’. The method prescribed
\nfor ascertaining the minimum necessary merit required for
\npromotion by seniority-cum-merit is ‘interviews and
\nassessment of performance reports for the preceding 3 years’.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe promotions were made by the Bank in accordance
\nwith the promotion policy contained in the circular dated
\n2.2.1989. The circular stated the object of the promotion policy
\nthus:\n<\/p>\n
“The object of the policy which is based on the principle of
\nSeniority-cum-merit is to provide motivation and ensure
\ncarrier movement for Bank Staff. Apart from seniority,
\nmerit based on performance coupled with weightage for
\nplacement\/posting in comparatively inconvenient areas,
\nwill be the determining factors for promotion.”\n<\/p>\n
Chapter 3 of the said promotion policy dealing with promotions
\nto the post of Field Supervisors is extracted below :\n<\/p>\n
“FROM SENIOR CLERK\/CASHIER OR JUNIOR
\nCLERK\/CASHIER OR CLERK\/TYPIST OR
\nSTENO\/TYPIST TO FIELD SUPERVISOR.\n<\/p>\n
Promotion from Senior Clerk\/Cashier or Junior
\nClerk\/Cashier or Clerk\/Typist or Steno\/Typist to Field
\nSupervisor subject to satisfaction of minimum period of
\nservice shall be, at present on the basis of assessment of his
\noverall performance based on appraisal reports on him and
\nhis potentiality to shoulder higher responsibilities assessed
\nin the interview duly supplemented by weightage for
\nseniority placement\/posting as detailed herein below :\n<\/p>\n
Percent weightage for various promotion criteria as
\nmentioned above will be as follow :\n<\/p>\n
Total
\nMarks
\nSeniority
\nPosting at
\nRural Centres
\nPosting at
\ndifficult
\nCentres
\nPerformance
\nInterview
\n100<\/span>
\n20<\/span>
\n10<\/span>
\n5<\/span>
\n40<\/span>
\n25<\/span><\/p>\n
3.1 Seniority :\n<\/p>\n
Two marks for each completed year of service as Senior
\nClerk\/Cashier and one mark for each completed year of
\nservice as Junior-Clerk\/Cashier\/Typist\/Steno\/Typist subject
\nto a maximum of 20 marks.\n<\/p>\n
3.2 Posting at rural centers.\n<\/p>\n
Two marks for each completed year of service in rural
\ncenter with a maximum of 10 marks.\n<\/p>\n
3.3 Posting at difficult centers.\n<\/p>\n
One mark for each completed year of posting at difficult
\ncenter (difficult centers to be identified by the Chairman
\nand approved by the Board) with a maximum of 5 marks.\n<\/p>\n
3.4 Performance\/Appraisal<\/p>\n
Performance will be assessed through the appraisal reports
\nannually received from his superiors in such form as may
\nbe specified by the Chairman from time to time. Marks will
\nbe awarded at the rate of 8 marks each for annual appraisal
\nratings for the appraisal of preceding 3 years period with
\nthe maximum of 24 marks and 16 marks for overall
\nperformance of the Staff (maximum 16 marks).\n<\/p>\n
Performance, on the basis as stated above, will be assessed
\nby a Staff Selection Committee constituted by the Board
\nfor this purpose from time to time.\n<\/p>\n
3.5 Interview :\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tThe Staff Selection Committee constituted by the
\nBoard for the purpose of promotion, will also work
\nas Interview Committee.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tThe Maximum marks for interview will be 25. By
\nand large, the candidates who have been found
\neligible will be interviewed in respect of (1)
\nPersonality (2) Poise and Manner (3) Power of
\nexpression (4) Emotional Stability (5) Job
\nKnowledge including knowledge of Banking (with
\nreference to the functions\/role of Regional Rural
\nBanks) (6) General Knowledge (7) Initiative (8)
\nLeadership quality (9) Potential and suitability and
\noverall assessment.\n<\/p>\n
3.6.\tCandidates who have secured less than 40% marks
\nin interview will not be considered for promotion and their
\nnames will not be included in the final merit list.\n<\/p>\n
3.7.\tThe list of successful candidates in the order of total
\nmarks obtained will be placed by the Staff Selection
\nCommittee before the Board, duly recommended for
\nconsideration for appointments or promotion.”\n<\/p>\n
5.\tOn 3.7.1991 the appellant’s juniors were promoted as
\nField Supervisors. The appellant was not promoted. He
\ntherefore filed W.P. No.4485\/1993 in the High Court of
\nMadhya Pradesh, challenging the promotion of two of his
\njuniors (third respondent herein and one V.P. Singh) on the
\nground that the Bank had failed to make promotions on the
\nbasis of seniority cum merit, prescribed under the Rules, and
\nhad made promotions on the basis of merit cum seniority
\ncontrary to the rules. Appellant contended that the procedure
\nwhereby only 20 marks were allocated to seniority and 80
\nmarks were allocated for other factors for the purpose of
\nassessment, and promoting those who secured the highest
\nmarks on the basis of such assessment of overall performance,
\nclearly demonstrated that the promotions were not on the basis
\nof seniority cum merit.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tThe Bank resisted the said petition by contending that the
\npromotions were made on the basis of seniority cum merit and
\nnot on merit cum seniority, in accordance with the Promotion
\nPolicy dated 2.2.1989. It contended that the promotion policy
\ntook note of seniority also by earmarking 20 out of 100 marks
\nfor seniority and therefore the procedure adopted by the bank
\nfor promotions to the post of Field Supervisor should be
\nconsidered as seniority cum merit. It was not disputed that the
\ncomparative merit of the candidates was assessed with
\nreference to performance appraisal, interview, posting at
\nrural\/difficult centres and that the persons securing highest
\nmarks in the order of merit were recommended for
\nconsideration for promotion.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tA learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High
\nCourt allowed the Appellant’s writ petition by order dated
\n13.10.1998 following the decision of this Court in B.V. Sivaiah
\n& Ors. V. K. Addanki Babu<\/a> [1998 (6) SCC 720]. He held that
\nthe promotions had been made not on the basis of seniority cum
\nmerit, but on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. Consequently,
\nthe promotion of third respondent herein and V.P. Singh were
\nquashed with a direction to the Bank to consider the case of
\nappellant for promotion to the post of Field Supervisor, along
\nwith other eligible candidates. The said order of the learned
\nSingle Judge was challenged by the third respondent and V. P.
\nSingh in a Letters Patent Appeal which was dismissed on
\n2.12.1998. It is stated that the special leave petition filed against
\nthe decision in the Appeal was also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tAs no action was taken in pursuance of the said decision,
\nthe appellant filed a contempt petition on 31.1.1999. The said
\npetition was disposed of by the High Court, on 10.5.1999,
\nrecording the assurance of the Bank that the case of the
\nappellant will be considered and appropriate orders will be
\npassed within one month. Thereafter the bank again passed an
\norder of promotion dated 14.6.1999 promoting the third
\nrespondent to the post of Field Supervisor. Appellant was not
\npromoted.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tThe appellant, therefore, once again approached the
\nMadhya Pradesh High Court in W.P. No.2800\/1999 challenging
\nhis non-promotion, contending that the bank has not made
\npromotion on the basis of seniority cum merit. He contended
\nthat the Bank had failed to follow the decision of this Court in
\nSIVAIAH and the decision in his own case. He contended that
\neven under the basis of merit-cum-seniority adopted by the
\nBank, he was entitled to promotion on the total percentage of
\nmarks secured by him and he had been deliberately failed in the
\ninterview to deny him promotion. The appellant stated that he
\nhad secured the following marks in the assessment made for
\npromotion :\n<\/p>\n
Criteria
\nTotal
\nmarks
\nMarks secured
\nby appellant
\nSeniority
\n20<\/span>
\n16<\/span>
\nPosting at rural centres
\n10<\/span>
\n10<\/span>
\nPosting at difficult centres
\n5<\/span>
\n3<\/span>
\nPerformance
\n40<\/span>
\n24<\/span>
\nInterview
\n25<\/span>
\n9<\/span>
\nTOTAL
\n100<\/span>
\n62<\/span><\/p>\n
10.\tThe bank resisted the second petition also. It contended
\nthat the Departmental Promotion Committee had considered the
\ncase of the appellant and other eligible candidates in terms of
\nthe promotion policy contained in its circular dated 2.2.1989 by
\nassessing appellant’s performance and interviewing him. The
\nBank contended that, as per the promotion policy, the
\ncandidates who secure less than 40% of the 25 marks allocated
\nfor interview will not be considered for promotion; that only
\nthose who got 10 marks and above in the interview, were
\neligible for promotion; and that appellant who had secured only
\n9 marks in interview was thus not eligible for promotion.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tA learned Single Judge of the MP High Court dismissed
\nthe appellant’s writ petition (WP No. 2800\/1999) by order
\ndated 26.4.2000. He held that in Sivaiah’s case (supra), this
\nCourt had accepted the fixation of minimum standard for
\nassessing merit and a candidate who fails to fulfil the said
\nminimum standard cannot be promoted. The learned Single
\nJudge held that the appellant was not promoted, as he failed to
\nsecure the prescribed minimum for interview. The learned
\nSingle Judge was of the view that the method evolved for
\nadjudging the minimum merit was in consonance with the
\nprinciple of seniority-cum-merit, and the appellant having failed
\nin interview for promotion, he was not entitled to any relief.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tThe appellant challenged the said order before the
\nDivision Bench which rejected the LPA by judgment dated
\n23.8.2001 affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge. It
\nheld that the criteria adopted by the employer by prescribing
\nminimum qualifying marks for interview for determining the
\nsuitability of the candidate for promotion was just and
\nreasonable and the appellant having failed to secure the
\nminimum marks in the interview, was rightly not promoted.
\nBoth the single Judge and the Division Bench purported to
\nfollow the principle laid down in para 37 of the Judgment in
\nSIVAIAH (supra). The said decision of the Division Bench of
\nthe High Court is challenged in this appeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tAs both parties have relied on the decision in Sivaiah
\n(supra), we may start by referring to the relevant observations
\ntherein. The decision in SIVAIAH was a common judgment
\nwhich considered the meaning of the criterion ‘seniority-cum-
\nmerit’ for promotion. The decision dealt with several distinct
\nbatches of cases relating to different Regional Rural Banks,
\nwhich had different promotion policies, that is Rayalaseema
\nGrameena Bank, Pinakini Grameena Bank, Bastar Kshetriya
\nGramin Bank, Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank (respondent herein)
\nand Chhindwara-Seoni Kshetriya Gramin Bank.\n<\/p>\n
The High Courts had taken the view that if “seniority-cum-
\nmerit” criterion is adopted for the purpose of promotion, then
\nfirst the seniormost eligible employee has to be tested to find
\nout whether he possesses the minimum required merit for
\nholding the higher post and only if he is not found suitable or
\nfit, his immediate junior ma be tested for the purpose of
\npromotion. The said view was assailed before this Court by the
\nvarious regional rural banks as well as the promoted officers
\nwhose promotions had been set aside by the impugned
\njudgments of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
This Court noted that in the matter of formulation of a policy
\nfor promotion to a higher post, the two competing principles
\nwhich may be taken into account are inter-se seniority and
\ncomparative merit of employees who are eligible for promotion.
\nThis Court observed :\n<\/p>\n
“In Sant Ram Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1967 SC
\n1910), this Court has pointed out that the principle of
\nseniority ensures absolute objectivity by requiring all
\npromotions to be made entirely on grounds of seniority and
\nthat if a post falls vacant, it is filled by the person who had
\nserved longest in the post immediately below. But the
\nseniority system is so objective that it fails to take any
\naccount of personal merit. It is fair to every official except
\nthe best ones. An official has nothing to win or lose
\nprovided he does not actually become so inefficient that
\ndisciplinary action has to be taken against him. The
\ncriterion of merit, on the other hand, lays stress on
\nmeritorious  performance irrespective of seniority and even
\na person, though junior but much more meritorious than his
\nseniors, is selected for promotion. The Court has expressed
\nthe view that there should be a correct balance between
\nseniority and merit in a proper promotion policy. The
\ncriteria of “seniority-cum-merit” and “merit-cum-seniority”
\nwhich take into account seniority as well as merit seek to
\nachieve such a balance.”\n<\/p>\n
This Court also noted that while the principle ‘seniority-cum-
\nmerit’ lays greater emphasis on seniority, ‘merit-cum-seniority’
\nlaid greater emphasis on merit and ability and seniority plays a
\nless significant role, becoming relevant only when merit is
\napproximately equal. After referring to several decisions
\nbearing on the issue, this Court enunciated the following
\ngeneral principle in regard to promotions by seniority cum
\nmerit (at para 18) which is relied on by the Appelllant :\n<\/p>\n
“We thus arrive at the conclusion that the criterion of
\n“seniority-cum-merit” in the matter of promotion postulates
\nthat given the minimum necessary merit requisite for
\nefficiency of administration, the senior, even though less
\nmeritorious, shall have priority and a comparative
\nassessment of merit is not required to be made. For
\nassessing the minimum necessary merit, the competent
\nauthority can lay down the minimum standard that is
\nrequired and also prescribe the mode of assessment of merit
\nof the employee who is eligible for consideration for
\npromotion. Such assessment can be made by assigning
\nmarks on the basis of appraisal of performance on the basis
\nof service record and interview and prescribing the
\nminimum marks which would entitle a person to be
\npromoted on the basis of seniority-cum-merit.”\n<\/p>\n
Thereafter, this Court took up the cases of each Bank
\nseparately. While dealing with the case relating to Chhindwara-
\nSeoni Kshetriya Gramin Bank,  this Court observed thus (in
\npara 37) which is relied on by the Respondents  :\n<\/p>\n
“During the course of hearing of the appeal, the learned
\ncounsel for the respondent-Bank has placed before us the
\nrelevant documents relating to the impugned selection and
\npromotion. On a perusal of the said documents, we find that
\n50 marks out of the total of 100 marks were prescribed as
\nthe minimum qualifying marks for interview and only those
\nwho had obtained the qualifying marks in interview were
\nselected for promotion on the basis of seniority. It was,
\ntherefore, a case where a minimum standard was prescribed
\nfor assessing the merit of the candidates and those who
\nfulfilled the said minimum standard were selected for
\npromotion on the basis of seniority. In the circumstances, it
\ncannot be said that the selection has not been made in
\naccordance with the principle of “seniority-cum-merit”. We
\nare, therefore, unable to uphold the impugned judgment of
\nthe High Court. The appeal has to be allowed and the
\nimpugned judgment of the High Court dated 7.2.1997
\npassed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court has to
\nbe set aside and the promotion of the appellant on the post
\nof Area\/Senior Manager under order dated 8.4.1993 has to
\nbe affirmed.”\n<\/p>\n
14.\tBefore considering the effect of observations in para 37
\nof the decision in SIVAIAH, relating to Chindwara-Seoni
\nKshetriya Gramin Bank, let us refer to what this Court held
\nwith reference to other Banks :\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tRayalaseema Grameena Bank had adopted a system of
\nassessment where weightage to be given (total of 120
\nmarks) was divided into seniority (34 marks),
\nqualification (10 marks), interview (20 marks) and
\nperformance (56 marks). Only those officers who had
\nsecured the higher number of marks were ultimately
\npromoted. On these facts, this Court held :
\n“It is not a case where minimum qualifying marks
\nare prescribed for assessment of performance and
\nmerit and those who secure the prescribed minimum
\nqualifying marks are selected for promotion on the
\nbasis of seniority. In the circumstances, it must be
\nheld that the High Court has rightly come to the
\nconclusion that the mode of selection that was in
\nfact employed was contrary to the principle of
\n“seniority-cum-merit” laid down in the Rules.”\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tPinakini Grameena Bank had adopted a system of
\nassessment where weightage to be given (total of 100
\nmarks) was divided into seniority (55 marks), passing
\nCAIIB (5 marks) performance (25 marks) and interview
\n(15 marks). Only those who secured highest number of
\nmarks were promoted. This Court held :\n<\/p>\n
“The said circular did not prescribed minimum
\nqualifying marks for assessment of performance and
\nmerit on the basis of which an officer would be
\nconsidered for being selected and, as pointed out by
\nthe High Court, the selection was made of only
\nthose officers who secured the highest number of
\nmarks amongst the eligible officers. In the
\ncircumstances, the High Court, in our view, has
\nrightly held that this method of selection was
\ncontrary to the principle of “seniority-cum-merit”
\nand it virtually amounts to the application of the
\nprinciple of “merit-cum-seniority”.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tBastar Kshetriya Gramin Bank made selections on the
\nbasis of interview of all the eligible officers by the Staff
\nSelection Committee and a select list of five persons was
\nprepared and on that basis promotions were made. This
\nCourt held :\n<\/p>\n
“It is not disputed that the selection was made on
\nthe basis of marks assigned on the basis of
\ninterview by the Selection Committee and those
\nwho secured the highest marks were selected. The
\nselection process adopted for the purpose of
\npromotion to the post of Area Managers\/Senior
\nManagers was thus not in consonance with the
\nprinciple of “seniority-cum-merit” and the
\npromotions were not made in accordance with the
\nRules.”\n<\/p>\n
15.\tThereafter, this Court considered the case of the first
\nRespondent Bank itself (in paras 33 to 35). There also the bank
\nrelied on the very same promotion policy contained in circular
\ndated 2.2.1989 (with which we are concerned) for promotion to
\nthe post of Area\/Senior Manager by seniority cum merit. The
\npromotion policy provided that the promotion from the post of
\nofficer to Area\/Senior Manager shall be on the basis of his
\noverall performance based on appraisal reports and his
\npotentiality shall be assessed in the interview, duly
\nsupplemented by weightage for job responsibility, placement,
\nposting mobility etc. 100% weightage was divided into
\nseniority (15 marks), job responsibility (12 marks),
\nplacement\/posting mobility (8 marks), performance (40 marks)
\nand interview (25 marks). As in the case of promotion to the
\npost of Field Supervisors, the policy provided that the
\ncandidates who secure less than 40% of the marks allocated for
\ninterview, shall not be considered for promotion and the list of
\nsuccessful candidates in the order of total marks obtained will
\nbe placed by the Staff Selection Committee for consideration
\nfor promotion. The challenge to the promotion of Area\/Senior
\nManagers on the above basis was upheld by the learned Single
\nJudge and confirmed in Appeal b the Division Bench. This
\nCourt dismissed the appeals on the following reasoning :\n<\/p>\n
“For the same reasons, civil appeals arising out of Special
\nLeave Petition [C} Nos.19965-19966 of 1997 are also
\nliable to be dismissed inasmuch as according to the
\npromotion policy dated 2.2.1989, selection was made on
\nthe basis of the total number of marks obtained by the
\neligible candidates. The criterion of the promotion policy
\ncannot be regarded as being in consonance with the
\nprinciple of “seniority-cum-merit” as prescribed under the
\nRules.”\n<\/p>\n
16.\tIt is thus clear that this Court did not accept the
\npromotion policy contained in circular dated 2.2.1989 as being
\nin consonance with the principle of seniority-cum-merit. This
\nCourt held that the policy which did not prescribe a minimum
\nstandard for assessing merit and which promoted candidates on
\nthe basis of comparative merit, with reference to total marks
\nobtained by the eligible candidates, followed the merit-cum-
\nseniority principle. The decision in SIVAIAH relating to
\nArea\/Senior Managers of the first respondent bank was
\nfollowed by the High Court in the case of appellant, in its
\njudgment dated 13.10.1998 and it was held that the procedure
\nadopted by the first respondent bank for promotion of third
\nRespondent and V.P. Singh as per circular dated 2.2.1989 was
\ncontrary to the Rules which required promotions by seniority-
\ncum-merit, and the bank was directed to redo the promotions by
\nconsidering the case of appellant and other eligible candidates
\nby adopting the criteria of seniority cum merit. That decision
\nattained finality as the appeal and SLP were rejected. It may be
\nstated that even prior to the decision in SIVAIAH relating to
\nArea\/Senior Managers of the first respondent bank, the same
\nview had been expressed in the earlier judgment dated
\n9.10.1996 of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High
\nCourt in LPA No.151\/1996 and connected cases and civil
\nappeals arising out of SLP (c) Nos.17780-81\/1997 filed against
\nthe said judgment dated 9.10.1996 had been dismissed.
\nTherefore we have several rounds of litigation which had been
\nfought up to this court where the High Court and this court have
\nrepeatedly and clearly held that the procedure prescribed, in the
\npromotion policy circular dated 2.2.1989, is not in consonance
\nwith the principle of seniority-cum-merit prescribed for
\npromotion under the Rules but amounted to following the
\nprinciple of merit cum seniority and therefore vitiated. What is
\nsurprising is that, in spite of these decisions, the first respondent
\nbank again adopted the very same procedure contained in the
\npromotion policy of 2.2.1989 and again failed to promote the
\nappellant by assigning him marks of 16 (20), 10 (10), 3(5), 24
\n(40) and 9 (25) and held that he was not eligible for promotion
\nas he did not secure the minimum marks of 10 prescribed for
\ninterview. But, admittedly, there was no overall minimum and
\nthe procedure required assessment of comparative merit. This is
\nnot therefore a case of the appellant failing to secure the
\nminimum necessary merit required for promotion but a case
\nwhere the appellant’s  entitlement to promotion was sought to
\nbe assessed by adopting a procedure which allotted 20 marks
\nfor seniority, 40 marks for performance, 15 marks for posting at
\nrural and difficult centres and 25 marks for interview. The bank
\nhas persisted in adopting the merit-cum-seniority procedure in
\nspite of the decisions of this Court in several rounds of
\nlitigation referred to above. As the entire promotion procedure
\nadopted by the bank as per its policy dated 2.2.1989 has stood
\nrejected by the High Court and this court in SIVAIAH (supra)
\nas also in the earlier round of litigation of Appellant, the
\npromotion of third Respondent and non-promotion of appellant
\nby adopting the very same procedure is liable to be interfered
\nwith.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tInterviews can be held and assessment of performance
\ncan be made by the Bank in connection with promotions. But
\nthat can be only to assess the minimum necessary merit. But
\nwhere the procedure adopted, does not provide the minimum
\nstandard for promotion, but only the minimum standard for
\ninterview and does the selection with reference to comparative
\nmarks, it is contrary to the Rule of ‘seniority-cum-merit’. This
\naspect of the matter has been completely lost sight of by the
\nlearned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court
\nin this round of litigation. As noticed above, they have
\nproceeded on the basis that the appellant having failed to secure
\nthe minimum marks prescribed for interview, was rightly
\ndenied promotion, by ignoring the principle laid down by this
\ncourt in SIVAIAH in regard to seniority-cum-merit. At all
\nevents, as the promotion policy adopted by the Bank was held
\nto be illegal in the earlier round of litigation (W.P. No.
\n4485\/1993 dated 13.10.1988), the Bank could not have adopted
\nthe same policy to again reject the Appellant for promotion. We
\nmay also note that the law laid down in SIVAIAH was
\nreiterated in Sher Singh vs. Surinder Kumar<\/a> [1998 (9) SCC
\n652] wherein this Court had occasion to consider a similar
\nquestion relating to the promotion for the post of clerk to Field
\nSupervisor  in the case of another Gramin Bank. This Court
\nheld that as the criterion for making promotion from the post of
\nclerk to that of Field Supervisor was seniority-cum-merit but
\nthe Bank did not follow the criterion of seniority-cum-merit but
\nmade promotions on the basis of merit-cum-seniority, the
\npromotion was vitiated and therefore invalid.\n<\/p>\n
18.\tWe will now deal with para 37 in SIVAIAH (supra)
\nrelied on by the Respondents. Para 37 related to Chhindwara-
\nSeoni Kshetriya Gramin Bank where the procedure adopted for
\npromotion was different from the criteria that was adopted by
\nthe Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank, first respondent herein. In the
\ncase of Chhindwara Seoni Kshetriya Bank, the assessment of
\nminimum necessary merit was by interview. The candidate who
\nsecured a minimum of 50 out of 100 marks in the interview,
\nwas selected for promotion on the basis of seniority. It was thus
\nfound to be a case where minimum standard was prescribed for
\nassessing the merit of the candidates and those who qualified by
\nsecuring the minimum marks (50%) were promoted strictly as
\nper seniority. Thus, it was in consonance with the principle of
\nseniority-cum-merit. Therefore, the observations in para 37 of
\nSIVAIAH are of no assistance to Respondents. As we have
\nalready noticed, in this case, the procedure is not one of
\nascertaining the minimum necessary merit and then promoting
\nthe candidates with the minimum merit in accordance with
\nseniority, but assessing the comparative merit by drawing up a
\nmerit list, the assessment being with reference to marks secured
\nfor seniority, performance, postings at rural\/difficult places and
\ninterview. The fact that the appellant had failed to secure the
\nminimum marks in interview, is not relevant as the entire
\nprocedure adopted by the bank (of which interview is a part) is
\nfound to be vitiated and not in consonance with the principle of
\nseniority cum merit.\n<\/p>\n
19.\tIn this view of the matter, we do not propose to go into
\nthe contention of the appellant that though he had secured very
\nhigh percentages (overall 62%), with the intention of
\ndeliberately denying him promotion, he had been failed in
\ninterview by giving him 9 marks as against the minimum of 10
\nfor interview.\n<\/p>\n
20.\tThe learned counsel for the Bank placed reliance on the
\ndecision of this Court in K. Samantaray vs. National
\nInsurance Co. Ltd.,<\/a> [2004 (9) SCC 286), where this Court
\nfollowing the earlier decision in Syndicate  Bank SC & ST
\nEmployees Assn. Vs. Union of India [1990 Supp.SCC 350],
\nreiterated that apart from the recognized methods of seniority-
\ncum-merit and merit-cum-seniority, there can also be a third
\nmethod, that is a hybrid mode of promotion. This Court
\nobserved :\n<\/p>\n
“While laying down the promotion policy or rule, it is
\nalways open to the employer to specify the area and
\nparameter of weightage to be given in respect of merit and
\nseniority separately so long as policy is not colourable
\nexercise of power, nor has the effect of violating any
\nstatutory scope of interference and other relatable matters.”\n<\/p>\n
But in that case promotions were not governed by any statutory
\nRules, but by a promotion policy. The above observations made
\nwith reference to such a policy, which wholly occupied the field
\ninsofar as promotion is concerned, are not relevant where the
\nstatutory Rules require promotion by seniority-cum-merit.\n<\/p>\n
21.\tThe next question that arises for consideration is the
\nrelief to be granted. The appellant was first considered for
\npromotion during 1991 and was not promoted, by wrongly
\nadopting the principle of merit-cum-seniority. The said
\nprocedure was found to be erroneous by the Single Judge,
\nDivision Bench and by this court. The Bank was directed to
\nconsider the case of Appellant for promotion on the basis of
\nseniority-cum-merit. Thereafter, in the contempt proceedings
\ninitiated by the appellant, the Bank undertook to comply with
\nthe order directing consideration of the appellant’s case by the
\nprocedure of seniority cum merit. But the Bank, again by
\nadopting the merit-cum-seniority method, failed to promote the
\nappellant and promoted third respondent.  The procedure
\nadopted by the Bank had been found to be faulty on three
\noccasions by this Court and the High Court, one of which was
\nin the case of Appellant himself.  The appellant had been denied
\npromotion for more than 16 years by repeatedly adopting such
\nan erroneous procedure. In the circumstances, we do not think it
\nnecessary to drive the appellant once again to face the process
\nof selection for promotion. This Court in Comptroller and
\nAuditor General of India v. K.S. Jagannathan<\/a> [1986 (2)
\nSCC 679] observed thus :\n<\/p>\n
“There is thus no doubt that the High Courts in India
\nexercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 have the
\npower to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of
\nmandamus or to pass orders and given necessary directions
\nwhere the government or a public authority has failed to
\nexercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred
\nupon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the
\ngovernment or has exercised such discretion mala fide or
\non irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant
\nconsiderations and materials or in such a manner as to
\nfrustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the
\npolicy for implementing which such discretion has been
\nconferred. In all such cases and in any other fit and proper
\ncase a High Court can, in the exercise of its jurisdiction
\nunder Article 226, issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the
\nnature of mandamus or pass orders and given directions to
\ncompel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of
\nthe discretion conferred upon the government or a public
\nauthority, and in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice
\nresulting to the concerned parties, the court may itself pass
\nan order  or give directions which the government or the
\npublic authority should have passed or given had it
\nproperly and lawfully exercised its discretion.”\n<\/p>\n
Having regard to the factual background of the case, and having
\nregard to the fact that even under the merit cum seniority basis
\nadopted by the bank the appellant had secured high marks and
\nhe was denied promotion on the ground that he failed to secure
\nminimum marks in the interview, there is no need to refer the
\nmatter for fresh consideration. With a view to do complete
\njustice, in exercise of our power under Article 142 we hereby
\ndirect the first respondent bank to promote the appellant as a
\nField Supervisor, from the date the third defendant was
\npromoted as Field Supervisor and place him above the third
\nRespondent. However, he will be entitled to monetary benefits
\nflowing from such promotion only prospectively, though the
\npay is to be refixed with reference to the retrospective date of
\npromotion.\n<\/p>\n
22.\tThis appeal is allowed accordingly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Harigovind Yadav vs Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank & Ors on 9 May, 2006 Author: Raveendran Bench: B N Srikrishna, R V Raveendran CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1153 of 2003 PETITIONER: Harigovind Yadav RESPONDENT: Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/05\/2006 BENCH: B N Srikrishna & R V Raveendran […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-96981","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nHarigovind Yadav vs Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank & Ors on 9 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harigovind-yadav-vs-rewa-sidhi-gramin-bank-ors-on-9-may-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Harigovind Yadav vs Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank & Ors on 9 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harigovind-yadav-vs-rewa-sidhi-gramin-bank-ors-on-9-may-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-21T09:44:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harigovind-yadav-vs-rewa-sidhi-gramin-bank-ors-on-9-may-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harigovind-yadav-vs-rewa-sidhi-gramin-bank-ors-on-9-may-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Harigovind Yadav vs Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank & Ors on 9 May, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-21T09:44:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harigovind-yadav-vs-rewa-sidhi-gramin-bank-ors-on-9-may-2006\"},\"wordCount\":5183,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harigovind-yadav-vs-rewa-sidhi-gramin-bank-ors-on-9-may-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harigovind-yadav-vs-rewa-sidhi-gramin-bank-ors-on-9-may-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harigovind-yadav-vs-rewa-sidhi-gramin-bank-ors-on-9-may-2006\",\"name\":\"Harigovind Yadav vs Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank & Ors on 9 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-21T09:44:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harigovind-yadav-vs-rewa-sidhi-gramin-bank-ors-on-9-may-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harigovind-yadav-vs-rewa-sidhi-gramin-bank-ors-on-9-may-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harigovind-yadav-vs-rewa-sidhi-gramin-bank-ors-on-9-may-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Harigovind Yadav vs Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank & Ors on 9 May, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Harigovind Yadav vs Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank & Ors on 9 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harigovind-yadav-vs-rewa-sidhi-gramin-bank-ors-on-9-may-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Harigovind Yadav vs Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank & Ors on 9 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harigovind-yadav-vs-rewa-sidhi-gramin-bank-ors-on-9-may-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-21T09:44:35+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harigovind-yadav-vs-rewa-sidhi-gramin-bank-ors-on-9-may-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harigovind-yadav-vs-rewa-sidhi-gramin-bank-ors-on-9-may-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Harigovind Yadav vs Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank & Ors on 9 May, 2006","datePublished":"2006-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-21T09:44:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harigovind-yadav-vs-rewa-sidhi-gramin-bank-ors-on-9-may-2006"},"wordCount":5183,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harigovind-yadav-vs-rewa-sidhi-gramin-bank-ors-on-9-may-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harigovind-yadav-vs-rewa-sidhi-gramin-bank-ors-on-9-may-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harigovind-yadav-vs-rewa-sidhi-gramin-bank-ors-on-9-may-2006","name":"Harigovind Yadav vs Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank & Ors on 9 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-21T09:44:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harigovind-yadav-vs-rewa-sidhi-gramin-bank-ors-on-9-may-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harigovind-yadav-vs-rewa-sidhi-gramin-bank-ors-on-9-may-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harigovind-yadav-vs-rewa-sidhi-gramin-bank-ors-on-9-may-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Harigovind Yadav vs Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank & Ors on 9 May, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96981","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=96981"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96981\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=96981"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=96981"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=96981"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}