SHRIRAM TOMAR AND ANOTHER ETC. versus PRAVEEN KUMAR JAGGI AND OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 6 S.C.R. 590 · Decided: 09-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
590
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
SHRIRAM TOMAR AND ANOTHER ETC.
v.
PRAVEEN KUMAR JAGGI AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3603-07 of 2019)
APRIL 09, 2019
    [L.NAGESWARA RAO AND M.R. SHAH, JJ.]
Service Law: Promotion – Post of Junior Management Scale
II – Criteria for promotion – Seniority-cum-merit – Mode of selection
based on written test, interview and assessment of performance
appraisal reports for preceding five years as officer in Scale I –
The candidates were to appear in written test comprising of two
parts – As per the Rules, those candidates who secured minimum
40% of marks in each part were to be called for interview – As
regards interview and  performance appraisal reports for preceding
five years service, under the rules, no minimum qualifying marks
were provided – However, Selection Committee fixed bench mark of
minimum 12 marks to be secured in the interview as well as
performance appraisal (each) and decided that only those
candidates who secured in all 24 marks in minimum in the interview
as well as the performance appraisal would be considered for
promotion – Accordingly, based on this criteria promotion order
was made – Writ petitioners challenged the same on the ground that
the three successful candidates were junior to them and  since writ
petitioners obtained more than 40% marks in the written test and
were senior, they ought to have been promoted to the post of Scale
II – The promotions were also challenged on the ground that further
fixing the qualifying marks to be obtained in the interview and the
performance appraisal reports, viz., 12 minimum marks each to be
obtained in the interview and the performance appraisal reports
and fixing such a benchmark would violate the principle of seniority-
cum-merit –  The Single Judge of High Court held that fixing the
qualifying marks/benchmark to obtain minimum 12 marks in the
interview and the performance appraisal was not permissible and
it defeated the principle of seniority-cum-merit and, therefore,
directed to prepare a fresh promotion list by prescribing the minimum
necessary cut off merit marks out of 100 so that the rule of seniority-
cum-merit could be made applicable – The Division Bench, not only
[2019] 6 S.C.R. 590
  590
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
591
dismissed the appeals, but also  set aside the directions issued by
the Single Judge and directed the establishment to conduct fresh
exercise for promotion – Hence the instant appeal – Held:  The
Single Judge as well as the Division Bench erred in holding that
fixing the qualifying marks to be obtained in the interview and the
performance appraisal reports would violate the principle of
seniority-cum-merit – As the promotion to the post of Junior
Management Scale II is to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-
merit, the only requirement is that after it is found that the candidates
have possessed the minimum necessary merit, namely, minimum 40%
qualifying marks in the written test and minimum 12 marks each out
of 20 marks each in interview and the performance appraisal reports
respectively, the candidates would be promoted in the order of
seniority, irrespective of anyone among them having obtained more
marks – In view of this, orders of Single Judge and Division Bench
of High Court are quashed and respondent-authority is directed to
prepare a fresh select list for promotion accordingly – Regional
Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other
Employees) Rules, 1998.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: The Single Judge as well as the Division Bench
erred in holding that further fixing the qualifying marks to be
obtained in the interview and the performance appraisal reports,
viz., 12 minimum marks each to be obtained in interview and the
performance appraisal reports and fixing such a benchmark would
violate the principle of seniority-cum-merit. Further fixing the
qualifying marks in the written test,  performance appraisal reports
and the interview has not violated the principle of seniority-cum-
merit. It is further held that prescribing minimum qualifying marks
to ascertain the minimum merit necessary for discharging the
functions of the higher post is not violative of the concept of
promotion by seniority-cum-merit. The judgments and orders
passed by the single judge of High Court and Division Bench of
High Court are set aside. The authority is directed to prepare a
fresh select list for promotion and to consider the case of those
candidates who crossed the bench

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.