BHAGWANDAS TIWARI AND ORS. versus DEWAS SHAJAPUR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK & ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 760 · Decided: 08-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BHAGWANDAS TIWARI AND ORS. 
v. 
DEWAS SHAJAPUR KSHETRIY A GRAMIN BANK & ORS. 
NOVEMBER 8, 2006 
B 
[ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Promotion-Banking Services-Junior Management Grade J-
C Promotion to be made on basis of 'seniority-cum-merit-Plea that principle 
of 'seniority-cum-merit was given a go-by and employer bank adopted the 
policy of 'merit-cum-seniority by fixing criteria that only those employees 
who secured minimum 45 marks out of 60 in respect of performance of work 
and interview shall be selected for promotion-Held: Plea not tenable since 
D nowhere there was a stipulation of obtaining 45 marks as a compulsory 
measure-No minimum marks was prescribed for assessing merit-Addition 
of a condition, not specifically provided far, is impermissible-Doctrine of 
reading down the provisions cannot be applied to facts af the case-
Doctrines-Doctrine of reading down-Regional Rural Banks (Appointment 
and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1988 -
Second 
E Schedule -
Clause 7. 
Promotion-No employee has right to be promoted-But has a right to 
be considered for promotion. 
Promotion-Principle of 'merit-cum-seniority and 'seniority-cum-merit'-
F Difference between, discussed. 
Respondent No.1-Bank issued promotion policy for officers working in 
Junior Management Grade I for being considered to the next promotional post, 
Middle Management II. In terms of the policy, promotion was to be made on 
G the basis of seniority-cum-merit. Respondent Nos. 2 to 8 were granted 
promotion. However some of their colleagues filed writ petition before High 
Court contending that the principle of seniority-cum-merit was given a go-by 
and Respondent No. I-bank adopted the policy of merit-cum-seniority by fixing 
criteria that only those employees who have secured 45 marks out of 60 in 
H 
760 
BHAGW ANDAS TIW ARI"· DEW AS SHAJAPUR KSHETRIY A GRAMIN BANK 
761 
respect of criterion A and C i.e. Performance of work and interview shall be A 
selected for promotion. The writ petition was dismissed. Hence the present 
appeal 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In all services, whether public or private there is invariably a B 
hierarchy of posts comprising of higher posts and lower posts. Promotion, as 
understood under the service law jurisprudence, is advancement in rank, grade 
or both and no employee has right to be promoted, but has a right to be 
considered for promotion. [767-E-F] 
Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., AIR (1967) SC 1910, C 
referred to. 
2.1. The principle of "merit-cum-seniority" lays greater emphasis on 
merit and ability and seniority plays a less significant role. Seniority is to be 
given weight only when merit and ability are approximately equal On the other D 
hand, as between the principles of seniority and merit, the criterion of 
'seniority-cum-merit' lays greater emphasis on seniority. (765-E, F; 766-C] 
2.2. The High Court missed one basic factor. The circular nowhere 
refers to the minimum marks being relatable to criteria A and C and nowhere 
there is a stipulation of obtaining minimum 45 marks as a compulsory 
measure. If really the intention was to apply the said minimum marks to said E 
criteria it would have been specifically provided that way. The doctrine of 
reading down the provisions has really no application to the facts of the case. 
Addition of a condition which is not specifically provided for is impermissible. 
(767-C, DJ 
2.3. There is no basis, in the instant case, for the stand that for assessing F 
merit a minimum number of marks has been prescribed. There is no mention 
that 45 marks out of 60 relate to the prescription of minimum marks for 
assessing the merit. The contention that minimum marks were 45 out of 60, 
means that an employee is to secure 75% of marks. Such a high percentage 
can not be a measure of prescribing minimum marks to assess merit. It 
obviously would be a case of shifting the focus to merit-cum-seniority. 
G 
(768-F-H] 
B. V. Sivaiah and Ors. v. K. Aridanki Babu and Ors., (1998) 6 SCC 720, 
relied on. 
Jagathigowda, C.N v. Chairman, Cauvery Gramina Bank, (1996) 9 sec H 
762 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A 677; Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor and Ors. (1973) 2 SCC 836; State 
of Mysore and Anr. v. Syed Mahmood and Ors., (1968) 3 SCR 363; State of 
Kera/a andAnr. v. N.M Thomas and Ors., [1976] 2 SCC 310; State of Mysore 
and Anr. v. Syed Mahamood and Ors., AlR (1968)
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.