HARIGOVIND YADAV versus REWA SIDHI GRAMIN BANK & ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 116 · Decided: 09-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. SRIKRISHNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
HARIGOVIND Y ADA V 
v. 
RFWA SIDHI GRAMIN BANK & ORS. 
MAY 9, 2006 
[B.N. SRIKRISHNA AND R.V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Regional Rural Banks (Appointment & Promotion of Officers and other 
Employees) Rules, 1988: Rules 5 and 10. 
Promotion policy-Seniority-cum-merit- -Interview --Importance of-
Weightage to be given- -Clerk-cum-cashier-Appellant employee's juniors 
were prom1Aed-Bu1 1he appellant employee was not promoted-Promotion 
policy was hased on the principle of seniority-cum-merit---Appellant employee 
filed writ petition challenging the promotion of his juniors--High Court held 
D 
that the promotion;; had been made not on the basis of seniority-cum-merit 
but on the basis of merit-cum-seniority--Promotion a/juniors quashed---On 
reconsideration the employee was still not promoted as he failed to secure 
the prescribed minimum marks in the interview--Correctness of-Held: 
Interviews can be held and assessment of performance can be made by the 
E 
employer if' connection with promotions-But that can be only to assess the 
minimum necessary merit--But where the procedure adopted, does not 
provide the minimum standard for promotion, but only the minimum 
standard for interview and does 1he sdeclion wilh n:ference to comparative 
marks, it is contrary to the Rule of 'seniority-cum-merit· -- Promotion of 
F 
G 
Appellant employee s juniors set aside- However, with a view to doing 
complete justice employer directed to promote the employee prospectively 
and place him ahove his juniors·--Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 142. 
The appellant and the third respondent were working as clerk-cum-
cashiers with the first respondent Bank. The appellant was at serial No. 
9 and third respondent was at serial No. to in the seniority list of senior 
clerks-cum-cashiers. There was no dispute that the third respondent was 
junior to the appellant in the cadre of clerk-cum-cashier. The appellant's 
juniors were promoted as Field Supervisors. The appellant was not 
promoted. 
H 
The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging 
116 
-
HARIGOVIND YADA V v. REWA SIDHI GRAMIN BANK 
117 
the promotion of his juniors on the ground that the respondent-Bank had A 
failed to make promotions on the basis of seniority-cum-merit prescribed 
under the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment & Promotion of Officers 
and other Employees) Rules, 1988 and had made promotions on the basis 
of merit-cum-seniority contrary to the Rules. 
The High Court held that the promotions had been made not on the 
B 
basis of seniority-cum-merit but on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. 
Consequently, the promotion of the third respondent was quashed with 
a direction to the Bank to consider the case of the appellant for promotion 
to the post of Field Supervisor along with other eligible candidates. 
As no action was taken in pursuance of the said decision, the appellant 
C 
filed a contempt petition. The said petition was disposed of by the High 
Court recording the assurance of the Bank that the case of the appellant 
would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed within one 
month. However, appellant was not promoted. 
The appellant, therefore, filed a fresh writ petition before the High 
D 
Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the 
appellant was not promoted, as he failed to secure the prescribed minimum 
marks in the interview. Hence the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Interviews can be held and assessment of performance 
can be made by the Bank in connection with promotions. But that can 
be only to assess the minimum necessary merit. But where the procedure 
adopted, does not provide the minimum standard for promotion, but 
only the minimum standard for interview and does the selection with 
·reference to comparative marks, it is contrary to the Rule of 'seniority-
cum-merit'. This aspect of the matter has been completely lost sight of 
by the High Court. The respondent-Bank have proceeded on the basis 
that the appellant having failed to secure the minimum marks prescribed 
for interview, was rightly denied promotion, by ignoring the principle 
laid down by this Court in SIVA/AH in regard to seniority-cum-merit. At 
all events, as the promotion policy adopted by the Bank was held to be 
illegal in the earlier round of litigation, the Bank could not have adopted 
the same policy to again reject the appellant for promotion. 
[129-G-H; 130-A) 
B. V Sivaiah v. VKAddank

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