RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA & ORS. versus SAMYUT KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK & ORS

Citation: [2009] 15 S.C.R. 936 · Decided: 17-11-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.~. 936 . 
RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA & ORS. 
V. 
SAMYUTKSHETRIYA GRAMIN·BANK &'()RS: 
· 
(Civil Appeal No:~691·of2001) ,. 
NOVEMBER),( 2009 ·. - , , 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
• 
• 
-
f 
• 
, 'I 
SERVICE LAW: 
" 
i 
"-. 
' 
REGIONAL RLJRAL BANKS '(APPOINTMENT AND 
PROMOTION OF OFF/GERS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES) 
C 
RULES, 1988: 
-
· •· 
r. 5 - Second Schedule, E(lt,Y 1 - Promdtion .:..: Criteria 
being seniority-cum-merit -
Provi~ion 'prescribing ininimum 
qualifying marks - Promotion to Area ·Manager/Senior 
Manager in Scale-I/- Management prescribing'78% minimum 
D qualifying marks for assessment 9f pa~t performance and 
interview - Held: Prescribing rhin'im'um qualify~n'g marks_ to_ 
ascertain th er minimum merit necessary for disch'afg{n'g the 
functions of higher post, is not violative of the concept of 
promotion by seniority-cum-merif ~ Where the ass'essmerit'of 
E minimum merit is with reference to previous pifrfdrmancii 
record (Annual Confidential Records) and/or by·inteiview, a~ 
contrasted from a written examination, prescriptionrof78% as· 
minimum marks, will not be considered astunreasonably high' 
- What should be the minimum necessary merit for.promotion, 
is a matter that is to be decided by the management, having 
F in mind the requirements of the ·post to which pii:infotion's are 
to be made - The employer has the discretion to fix•diffe'rent 
minimum merit, for different categories of posts, subject to the 
relevant Rules- In the instant case, the post of officf";·-Gradell· 
(Area Manager and Senior Manager) is a very senior position, .. 
G next only to the top post of General Manager - As the officers 
promoted to Scale II were required to head largerb'rahches or 
departments in the Head Office, sho"uldetirf§-·high'ef 
responsibilities and virtually competing with commercial banks, 
it cannot be said that the fixing the minimum qualifying 'marks · 
H 
936 
• r
< , 
I 
RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA v. SAMYUT 
937 
KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK 
at 78% is exqessive, unreasonable or arbitrqry. 
· Union of India vs. Lt. Gen. Rajendra Singh Kadyan 2000 
(6) SCC 698; B. V. Sivaiah vs. K. Addanki Babu 1998 (6) SCC 
720.and.State of Kera/a vs. N.M. Thomas 1976 (6) SCC 310, 
referred to.'::: c 2;, ,v; s .v .:- 1 ·, ) . • 
A 
~ t-Bhagwan'aas· fiwafi v.s·., tie was sHajapur Kshetriya Gram in s 
Bari/(:2006 (12) s·cc 574;'i:lisflnguished. ·. - . 
' 
··r··.·nt·jrvy•1.-., ··"···· 
·1••· 
. 
, 
' 
··~ · " 
'( 
· Case Lav/Reference : 
,t: 
f ':, .. ~~r '; 
I.I 
~,.. 
', 1'."'• 
·~ 
1, 
.J-
{ 
1 ·:~
1 
2006,(12) SCC,574 
distinguished. 
-Para 5 
. 1 ' , I ; 
J 
..J 
j 
". 
4 
l 
...., 
' 
C. ._' 
,... 
-
1998 (6) SCC 720 
referred Jo_ 
• ,~~ .' P.ara.-5. 
~.~-~o_oo (6) ~~9 .. 6.9~ :,-. 1t 
·dr~ferr~d ~<;>,· .,, ·. - Para 7, 
c 
.,,\1976 (6) SCC '310 ,.:r 
. referred to 
Para 7 · .r 
. CIVIL APPEtLA TE.JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No .. 6691. 
of 200111 091"• ',:'JJ ·. · 
'-·. 
;~ · .• or 
·; r:: · l! · 
t>From the Judgmenf&'Order dated104!07~2oorot the High' 
Court: df
1Judicature at Allahabad in C1vil Misc: Writ Petition No. 
D 
3151 1of.;19H7. :; -r:,1 ..1l0:,-
· · ;· · 1 L h-. 
_ 
i 
-
· 
;.•, P'.S1•1 Pa
4twa;lia:-i, ::-sidarth Luthra•, c·. b. :Si"hgh','" Sunny 
ChouC:lh.afy;Aetityal Sitlgh, Vaifagya var~h~n; fodhe Appella)lts. · 
· A'r10d;'.Fcr'ct1auciharY'.06P. G'aggar; Dirteshkum~'r Garg, 
s~~Jt~:n~ra.1·~~1~·~~w~:,~(~:.$ing~· .. t0~nc?i,s:~x~ri~.:,~~jrlis.h Kumar 
E 
SmgH,Jlrshad AttrRaa; forthe'Respondents. 
, 
The Order of the Court was.delivered by 
~-. t 
... d"lf"I \ ::i~t~ 'l. \in F -, 
.; J. i~I ~' "')!.: 
--~ 
I 
• (' 
• 
. 
I 
r 
. :.Jo 
-
: 'R:V.RA VEEN ORAN, J:. 1. The appellants a·re, employees . 
,.If ..... , ·"iJ1~ 
". r,j 
.:;:~·::..: ~•~-
..... . 
,:... 
t";" 
. 
..., 
~ 
r: 
1. 
·'~ 
of ~he~~rst_:~~~e~n.C!~~t, ~~~~· .. h,G1Y'OQ._be~n ~ppomte.~ ~qet~een, , 
197~0Wld ::} 918?; 1~y ~fl<;>,tiftc:;ft19n qateg;}~,9.:1 ~8~. -!h~ Central : . F 
Government in exer~is~.,p~powers.,conf~rred .unde:r se9tion 17 : 
read with section 29 ofthe Provincial Rural Banks Act, 1976 
t 
. ~· 
. (''• •, 
• tr. 
t 
''. 
,;." 
~ •.. 
.~ (' 
•·•I 
'.I 
... f 
'' . 
' ' . ! 
franiea 
1t9~r;~RegtopaJR~r~JrBaJ*~· (ARP9imment a11.d ~remotion 
of Officers"'and'Othef'EmRloyees) Rules, 1988 ('Rules' for short).~ 
' 
i;:"" 
·"' 
·• 
~1j"':\• 
~ 
r-1 •'"( 
'~I~ ..... ~ :tl .. 'r 
'' 
.... , 
...., 
'I 
.,_, 
Rule ~5 of th~ ;RqletPtrs>~~d~d t~~t'. al!_ y~~~p,·~ie~ spo~l.d, be filled ; 3G 
up by deputat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.