LexSARVA U.P. GRAMIN BANK & ORS. versus MANOJ KUMAR CHAK
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 2 S.C.R. 562 SARVA U.P. GRAMIN BANK & ORS. v. MANOJ KUMAR CHAK (Civil Appeal Nos. 2970-2975 of 2013 etc.) APRIL 09, 2013. [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] REGIONAL RURAL BANKS (APPOINTMENT AND PROMOTION OF OFFICERS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES) C RULES, 1998: "· 2(d), (e), (f) and (j) - Promotions to be made· "on the basis of seniority-cum-merit" - Connotation of - Circulars dated 30.11.2009 and 12.7.2010, enabling the management to 0 eliminate from zone of consideration such employees who have been rated Grade 'D' in perfonnance appraisal or who have suffered punishment - Set aside by High Court - Held: . Rules do not provide the criteria introduced by the two- circulars - The procedure prescribed under the two circulars clearly has the effect of supplanting the provision of eligibility, E which is not permissible - Determination of the bare minimum criteria is the function of the DPC and cannot be taken-over by management - Misconduct committed by employee/officer would be a matter for DPC to take into consideration at the time of performance appraisal - The two circulars being F contrary to statutory Rules, have rightly been quashed by High Court - Circular No. 17 of 2009 dated 3Q;11.2009 - Circular dated 12. 7. 201 O - Service law - Promotion - Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other G H Employees) Rules, 1988. The instant appeals were filed by the appellant-Banks challenging the judgment passed by the High Court, whereby it set aside the Circular No. 17 of 2009 dated 30.11.2009 and Circular dated 12.7.2010 in so far as they 562 SARVA. U.P. GRAMIN BANK & ORS. v. MANOJ 563 KUMAR CHAK provide to exclude the employees from consideration for A promotion on the basis that they had either obtained the 'D' rating in the annual performance report or were penalized for any misconduct in the preceding 5 years. Dismissing the appeals, the Court B HELD: 1.1 Statutory rules can be supplemented but cannot be supplanted. The RRB Rules, 1988 clearly provided that promotion shall be made by following the criteria of seniority-cum-merit There was no provision in the 1988 Rules that an employee/officer, who has been C punished in the 5 years preceding the selection process or has been given an adverse remark or graded 'D' shall not be considered for promotion at all. The circular dated 1.12.1987, which talks of promotion with seniority with due consideration to minimum merit/fitness, being clearly D contrary to 1988 Rules ceased to have any legal effect on : enforcement of the said Rules. The RRB Rules, 1988 were superseded by the RRB Rules, 1998, which incorporated the principle of minimum merit as enunciated by this Court in B.V. Sivaiah. Following the observations of this E Court, the RRB Rules, 1998 have introduced a detailed procedure for determining the minimum merit for promotion to the next higher post/grade. The RRB Rules, 1998 clearly provided that officers holding post for 8 years as an officer on regular basis in the RRB shall be F considered for promotion to the next higher post. The said Rules do not provide that any employee/officer, who has suffered a punishment or has received an adverse appraisal/Grade 'D' in the performance appraisal, shall not be eligible. However, the Circulars dated 30.11.2009 and G 12.7.2010 enable the appellant banks to eliminate such employees, which is clearly contrary to the provisions contained in the statutory service rules. The procedure prescribed under the aforesaid two Circulars clearly has the effect of supplanting the provision of eligibility, which H 564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 2 S.C.R. A is not permissible. Such an additional provision can not be justified on the basis that it would form part of the minimum merit required to be considered for promotion. [para 27-32] [583-E-G; 584-B-C-E; 585-B-E] 8 Sant Ram Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1968) 1 SCR 111 - relied on. B. V. Sivaiah & Ors. Vs. K. Addanki Babu & Ors. 1998 (3) SCR 782 = 1998 (6) SCC 720 - referred to. c Rajendra Kumar Srivastava & Ors. Vs. Samyut Kshetriya Gramin Bank & Ors. 2009 (15) SCR 936 = 2010 (1) SCC 335 - held inapplicable. 1.2 It can not be said that bare minimum merit can be determined even before the list of candidates is placed D before the DPC for consideration of their merit. It is only when all the candidates within the zone of consideration have
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.