RUPA RANI RAKSHIT AND ORS. versus JHARKHAND GRAMIN BANK AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 15 S.C.R. 1133 · Decided: 24-11-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1133 
RUPA RANI RAKSHIT AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
·~ 
JHARKHAND GRAMIN BANK AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1786 of 2002) 
NOVEMBER 24, 2009 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
B 
Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and promotions of 
officers and other employees) Rules, 1988: The Rules 
Jo 
provide for promotion based on seniority-cum-merit -
G 
Respondent-Bank governed by the Rules - Promotion of 
employees of bank on comparative assessment of merit with 
reference to marks for academic qualifications, years of 
service, performance appraisal and interview - Legality of -
Held: Not legal - High Court rightly interfered with the 
promotions - Directions given by High Court for fresh process D 
y 
of promotion was in consonance with Rules and principles of 
"' 
seniority-cum-merit - Service law. 
Service law: Promotion - Without following the rules -
Held: Period of service rendered in pursuance of such illegal 
E 
. promotion which was subsequently set aside cannot be 
counted for the purpose of seniority. 
Equity: Writ petition challenging promotion of appellants 
- No delay in filing writ petition - Fact that writ petition was 
pending for considerable time would not create any equities 
F 
in favour of appellants. 
The Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and 
=I 
promotions of officers and other employees) Rules, 1988 
provided for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-
merit. The respondent-bank governed by the Rules drew G 
--i. 
up a common seniority list of all the eligible candidates 
from the feeder cadres and subjected them to comparative 
~ 
assessment based on marks secured with reference to 
certain parameters adopted by the Bank. A list of the 
candidates who secured the minimum qualifying marks in 
H 
1133 
1134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A the interview was prepared in the order of merit with 
reference .to the marks secured by them on such 
)-<_"' 
assessment: 31 candidates were promoted from the said 
list of clerical cadre to the post of Field Supervisors in the 
order of merit by notification dated 20.11.1990. 
B 
The third respondent filed a writ petition before the 
High Court, contending that in making the promoticms, the 
Bank had ignored the principle of seniority-cum-merit 
prescribed under the Rules and had followed the principle 
of merit-cum-seniority. 
.I.. 
c 
High Court allowed the writ petition holding that the 
promotions were effected without following the principle 
of ser:-i.ority-cum-r:nerit and it directed fre,sh process of 
promotions by adopting· principle of seniority-cum-merit. 
Hence these appeals. 
D 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
y~: 
HELD: 1. The respondent-bank did not subject the 
eligible candidates to any process of assessment to 
ascertain any specified minimum merit, for the purpose of 
E promoting the candidates who possessed the minimum 
merit, on the basis of seniority. On the other hand, the Bank 
proceeded to assess their inter-se-merit with reference to 
four criteria (period of service, educational qualification, 
performance during three years, and interview) by 
\ 
F 
allocating respectively maximum marks of 40, 6, 24 and 30 
(out of a total 100 marks) and then proceeded to promote 
those who had 'secured the highest marks in the order of 
merit. Thus there were two violations of the relevant rules: 
~ 
I 
(i) promoting candidates on merit-cum-seniority and not 
G 
on seniority-cum-merit; and (ii) assessing inter-se merit, 
inter alia with reference to marks allocated to different 
educational qualifications. It cannot, therefore, be said that 
the promotions made on 20.11.1990 were on the basis of 
~
seniority-cum-merit. Though the period of service was also 
considered as one of the factors for assessment of 
H comparative merit, the procedure adopted for promotion 
RUPA RANI RAKSHIT AND ORS. v. JHARKHAND 1135 
GRAMIN BANK AND ORS. 
was merit-cum-seniority. The High Court was, therefore, 
A 
justified in interfering with the promotions. The directions 
given by the High Court for fresh process of promotion 
were in consonance with the Rules and principles of 
seniority-cum-merit. [Para 7] (1141-8-F] 
Rajendra Kumar Srivastava & Ors. v. Samyut Kshetriya 
B 
Gramin Bank & Ors. 2009 (14) SCALE 67, relied on. 
Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs. D.P. Singh 2000 (1) 
PLJR 25, referred to. 
.J. 
2. Though the promotions of appellants were in 
November, 1990, it was challenged before the High Court c 
by the third r
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.