B.V. SIVAIAH AND ORS. versus K. ADDANKI BABU AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 782 · Decided: 17-07-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B.V. SIVAIAH AND ORS. 
v. 
K. ADDANKI BABU AND ORS. 
JULY 17, 1998 
B 
[S.C. AGRA WAL, S.P. BHARUCHA AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Promotion-Rule prescribing seniority-cum-merit criterion-Authority 
c making promotion.on the basis of officers securing highest marks amongst 
' 
eligible officers-Challenged-Held, seniority-cum-merit implies prescribing 
minimum standard for assessing merit and from amongst those fulfilling the 
minimum standard making promotion on the basis of inter se seniority-
Comparative assessment of merit not required-Requirement of interview and 
D 
assessment of service in Rule cannot be construed as permitting comparative 
assessment-Principle laid down applied to promotions in different Regional 
Rural Banks-Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotio11s of Officers 
and other Employees) Rules, 1988-Second Schedule, Para 7. 
Promotion-Employees appointed on same date and having same length 
E of service-Inter se seniority-Determination of-Held, it is determined on 
the basis of placement in the Select List for appointment-Such determination 
· conje·rs ·cer:!_ai!I rights-Seniority-cum-merit criterion gives effect to such 
rights flowing from seniority-select list. 
Promotion-Seniority-cum-merit and merit-cum-seniority-Comparison 
F of-Held, seniority-cum-merit lays greater emphasis on seniority and 
comparative assessment of merit not required, whereas merit-cum-seniority 
lays greater emphasis on merit and ability and comparative assessment of 
merit required. 
Delay!Laches-Promotion challenged after five years-Persons 
G promoted acquiring certain rights-Held, persons cannot be deprived of 
such rights-Petition rightly rejected-Constitution of India-Article 226. 
Words & Phrases- 'Seniority-cum-merit' & 'Merit-cum-seniority'-
Meaning of in Service Law. 
H 
Appellants are the Regional Rural Banks in the States of Andhra 
782 
+ 
,..., -
..... 
'>- , 
c
-
\ \ 
B.V. SIVAIAH v. K. ADDANKI BABU 
783 
Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh and Officers promoted by these banks to the A 
post of Area/Senior Manager. "Seniority-cum-merit" was the criterion 
prescribed for promotion to the post of Area/Senior Manager under the 
Regional Rural Banks (Appointment & Promotion of Officers and Other 
employees) Rules, 1988. The various Regional Rural Banks laid down the 
promotion process according to which selection was to be made on the basis B 
of marks awarded for seniority, qualification, performance, interview, etc. 
Generally selections were made on the basis of total number of marks 
obtained and officers who secured highest number of marks were promoted. 
The unsuccessful persons challenged the promotions in various writ 
petitions in the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. In the C 
case ofRayalseema Grameena Bank, promotions made on may 3, 1988 were 
only challenged in 1993 alongwith subsequent promotions to the said post. 
Single Judge allowed the writ petitions and declared the promotions illegal 
and improper. Writ petition challenging the promotions made on May 3, 
1988 was, however, dismissed on the ground of !aches. Against the judgment 
of the Single Judge, the Regional Rural Banks and the promoted officers D 
preferred appeals in the High Court. Division Bench dismissed the appeals 
and confirmed the judgement of the Single Judge. The view of both the High 
Courts was that the method of selection was contrary to the principle of 
'seniority-cum-merit' prescribed by the Rules as Seniority had not been 
given due weight and held that the senior most eligible employee should have E 
been assessed for the minimum required merit for holding the higher post 
and only on his not being found suitable or fit, his immediate junior could 
be tested. Aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench, the Regional Rural 
Banks and the promoted officers have filed the present appeals. 
The appellants contended that the criterion of 'seniority-cum-merit' F 
allowed comparative merit to be assessed for the purpose of promotion by 
placing reliance on Para 7(c) of the Second Schedule to the Rules; that 
among officers who where appointed on the same date and have the same 
length of service seniority cannot have any bearing and promotions have to 
be made on the basis of comparative assessment of merit of such officers; G 
and that though not challenging the promotions made on May 3, 1998 in 
Rayalseena Grameena Bank in this court, but since subsequently some 
appellants have also been promot

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.