LexRAMRAO AND ORS. versus ALL INDIA BACKWARD CLASS BANK EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
\ RAMRAO AND ORS. V. ALL INDIA BACKWARD CLASS BANK EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ORS. JANUARY 5, .2004 [S.B. SINHA AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] Service law: A B Regional Rural Banks (Appointment & Promotion of Officers and Other C Employees) Rules, 1981-Promotion-Posts of Officers and Field Supervisors- Fixation of cut-off date for eligibility-Reservation of some posrs of Field Supervisors for Schedule Tribe-Interview of eligible candidates-Non- availability of eligible ST candidates-Proposal for dereservarion approved by aurhorities-Appoirm:ient of general category candidates tu the posts D dereserved-Wril pelition challenging cut-off date-Another petition challenging cut-off date fixed and also promotion order but promolees and authoritles not impleaded as parties-High Court holding cul-off date valid and that bank notfolloll'ed requisite procedure for dereservation, thus, direcling it lo examine availabilily (Jf eligible ST candidates and Jo promote them in ·place of open catego0· appointed against posts deresen,ed-011 appeal, held: E Dereservation policy 11ot·challe11ged-Promotees not impleaded as parties- Dereseryation made and vacancies filed by open category candidates-IVhether any eligible SC candidate available for promo/ion or not is question of fact-- Hence, High Court erred in passing the directions~However, cut-off date .fixed not hei11g a;·bitrary, it is valid. F f'rumotion--Cw-off date-Fixation for eligibility-When violative ·of Article 14-Held: When cut-off date fixed by employer is arbitrary or 1111re(lsonabie, it is violative of Article 14-Further, classification resulting therefi'om does 110/ create a class within a class or an artificial classification violative of .4rticle 14-Also hardship faced by some persons or section of G socielj• coming within the wrong side of cut-uff date, would no/ make it ultra ,·ires Article 14-Cunstitution of India, 1950-Article 14. ¥· Respondent-Marathwada Gramin Bank issued a Circular notifyin~ the eligibility criteria for internal promotion to the posts of Officers and 19 H 20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f2004] I S.C.R. A Field Supervisors. Board of Directors of the Bank approved the proposal to fill in 23 posts of Officers and 45 posts of Field Supervisors by promotion. h fixed 31.8.1989 as the cut-off date for eligibility. The promotions were to be governed under the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment & Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1981. B Further, it was made on the principle of seniority-cum-merit. Out of 45 posts of Field Supervisors, 13 including the backlog were proposed to be reserved for Scheduled Tribe (ST) Category. Respondent No.1- Association filed writ petition challenging the cut-off date of 31.8.1989. High Court passed interim order that the appointment would be subject to the result of writ petition. Meanwhile, interview was held of eligible C candidates. Furthermore, as no eligible ST candidate was available for promotion in the vacancies reserved for ST category, resolution was passed for dereserving the vacancies reserved for ST candidates. Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Sponsor Bank and NA BARD approved the proposal for dereservation. Pursuant to this, open category candidates were promoted in the dereserved posts. One A also filed writ petition D challenging the cut-off date and the order of promotion. However, in these writ petitions, neither the appellant-promotees nor Union of India or NABARD were impleaded as parties. High Court held that the cut-off date ,,. fixed was valid; and that the Bank did not follow the requisite procedure l for dereservation, therefore, it directed the bank to examine the caste claim E of all candidates belonging to ST category and those found eligible to be promoted and the open category candidates appointed against such posts to vacate the same. Hence the present appeals. Appellants-Promotees contended that the High Court erred in passing the impugned judgment as in the writ petitions neither they were F impleaded as parties nor the order of dereservation was in question. G Association contended that although they did not challenge the order of promotion, the same was done by one A, thus, High Court rightly passed the im1rngncd judgment; that since 29 vacancies existed in the Bank, the appellants as also "the ST Candidates <'an he accommodated against the said posts; and that the cut-off date fixed by the Bank was arhi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.