LexSHER SINGH AND ORS. versus SURINDER KUMAR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
. - . " SHER SINGH AND ORS. A v. SURINDER KUMAR AND ORS. JANUARY 21, 1998 [S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B Service Law : Promotion-Field Supervisors-Selection from amongst Clerks- Appellants promoted on the basis of merit-cum-seniority-On challenge, High C Court held that the entire selection was vitiated for not following the criterion of seniority-cum-merit-On appeal, Held, no error in the judgement of the 'High Court '-Fresh selection to be held-The criterion of seniority-cum- merit to be followed-The period for which appeilants worked as Field Supervisors not to be counted for seniority. The appellants and respondents 1 to 7 were the employees of the Himachal Gramin Bank. 30 posts of Field Supervisors were available with D the Bank, of which 15 wen: to be filled up by promotion from amongst the clerks and 15 by direct recruitment. The appellants and some others were selected and promoted to the post of Field Supervisors. The selection was E challenged on the ground that the criteria for making promotion was ~eniority cum-1J1erit but the Bank adopted the criteria of merit-cum-seniority. Th~ writ petition was allowed by the Single Judge and upheld be the Division Bench. The selected candidates filed special leave petition in this Court. This Court granted leave to appeal in respect of appellants 10 to 15 and refused leave F to appellants 1 to 9. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD: 1. Since the ~ank had adopted the criterion of"Merit-cum- seniority" and "not seniority-cnm•merit" in making selection and did not G produce the original records despite several directions and opportunities, the High Court was right in holding that the entire selection was vitiated. There is no infirmity in the judgements passed by the High Court and the same are upheld. (297-G) 2. The Bank shall hold a fresh selection in accordance with the H 295 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--... ~~ 296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) 1 S.C.R. A directions issued by the High Court within 5 months from the date of judgment. In view of the present litigation, the Bank has not made any promotion to the post of Field Supervisor so far. The Bank cannot, by this ,.J... attitude, stagnate its employees. 1298-DI 3. The appellants, who were promoted in 1987 and were amongst the B 15 persons originally selected have been working on these posts under the interim orders of this Court but since the appeal is being dismissed, the period of 11 years for which they were working on the posts of Field Supervisor shall not be counted towards their seniority and ifthe respondents along with appellants or any of them are selected and promoted to the post C of Field Supervisor in the fresh selection, they will retain their original seniority. 1298-E-FJ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7425 of 1994. From the Judgment and Order dated 14.1.94 of the Himachal Pradesh D High Court in LP.A. No. I of 1991. E M.R. Sharma, U.ijwal Banerjee and H.K. Puri for the Appellants. Raju Ramachandran and Sanjay Karol for Ms. Meenakshi Arora for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delilvered by S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J. The appellants and respondents I to 7 are the employees of the Himachal Gramin Bank (for short, 'the Bank'). In May-June, 1986, 30 posts of Field Supervisors, 15 of which were to be filled up by F promotion from amongst the Clerks and 15 by direct recruitment, became available. In February 1987, a selection was held, in which 15 persons including the present appellants were selected and promoted to the posts of Field . Supervisors. This selection was challenged by respondents I to 7 by a Writ Petition in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, which was allowed by the G Single Judge on 10th December, 1990. This decision was upheld by the Division Bench on 14th January, 1994. All persons including the present appellants filed S.L.P. No. 15559/1994 in this Court and the Court by its Order dated 10th November, 1994 granted leave only to appellants IO to 15, while leave was,refused to appellants No. 1 to 9. H 2. We have heard learned counsel of the parties, except the counsel for J ' . • SHER SINGH .v. SURINDER KUMAR [S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J.] 297 the Bank, who did not appear. A 3. It is not disputed that the criterion for making promotion from the post of Clerk to that of Field Supervisor was seniority-cum-merit. On a consideration of the facts placed before the High Court, the Single Ju
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.