Arjun
Singh Rathore & Ors Vs. B.N.Chaturvedi & Ors [2007] Insc 1052 (12 October 2007)
S.B.Sinha
& Harjit Singh Bedi
(arising
out of SLP(Civil) No. 21508/2005) HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J.
1.
Leave granted.
2.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of
the Rajasthan High Court dated 18th August 2005 setting aside the judgment of
the learned Single Judge thereby allowing the writ petition filed by the
respondents and further directing that promotion to the post of Scale-II Officers
be held as per the Rules of 1998. The facts leading to the filing of the appeal
are as under:
3. On
28th September 1988 the Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division),
Ministry of Finance, Government of India, after consultation with the National
Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development and in exercise of the powers
conferred by Section 29 of the Regional Rural Banks Act 1976 notified the
Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and others
Employees) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter called the Rules of 1988) which
came into force w.e.f. 28th September 1988. The second Schedule of these rules
provided for the mode of appointment to different categories of officers.
The
appellants herein fell in category No.6 whereas category No.7 dealt with the
appointment of Area Managers or Senior Managers by promotion of officers from
category No.6 and inter-alia provided that all the vacancies were to be filled
in by promotion from qualified and eligible persons working in the bank and
that the mode of selection would be interview and assessment of performance
reports for the preceding three years period. The Board of Directors of the
respondent Kshetriya Gramin-Bank adopted the Rules in a meeting held on 26th September 1988. It is the case of the appellants
that by the first of
April 1999, 15 posts
in all had become available for promotion under category 7 as no appointments
had, in fact, been made for several years. While the vacancies still existed
the Regional Rural Bank (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other
employees) Rules 1998 (hereinafter called the Rules of 1998) were
framed and published in the Official Gazette on 29th July 1998.
The
Board of Directors of the Kshetriya Bank adopted these rules and issued a
Circular dated 15th May
1999 conveying the
information that the Rules of 1988 had been superseded and that henceforth the
Rules of 1998 alone would form the basis for promotion etc. The Bank of Baroda
which was the sponsoring Bank under the Regional Rural Banks Act of 1976
thereafter made an enquiry from the concerned quarters and on 15th October 1999
addressed a letter to the Regional Rural Banks that in view of the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajathan vs. R.Dayal & Ors.,
any post which had fallen vacant prior to the amendment of the Rules would
be governed by the original rules and not by the amended rules and in
order to make matters more explicit repeated the directive by reiterating that
the posts which fell vacant prior to the publication of the amended rules
i.e. Rules 1998 would be governed by the Old Promotion Rules and not by the
amended rules. A copy of the letter dated 15th October 1999 has been appended as Annexure P-1 to the appeal.
4. The
respondent, Kshetriya-Bank thereupon issued a circular dated 13th June 2000 directing that all the vacancies
which were available as on 31st March 1998
be filled in under the Rules of 1988. 15 persons, the appellants herein, were
thereafter interviewed on 18th September 2000 and were found fit for promotion
and the said list was also approved by the Board of Directors and all 15
appellants were accordingly promoted to Scale-II under order dated 18th
September 2000. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein however preferred a joint Writ
Petition No. 3641/2000 in the High Court which was dismissed by the learned
Single Judge on 25th
September 2002 vide
judgment appended as Annexure P-2. An appeal was thereafter taken to a Division
Bench which reversed the order of the Single Judge thus allowing the Writ
Petition and directing that the promotions and the circulars dated 13th June 2000 and 18th September 2000 respectively be quashed and further directing the Kshetriya
Bank to make the promotions of Scale-II Officers as per the Rules of 1998. It
is in this circumstance that the present special leave petition has been filed.
5.
Notice was issued and all the respondents have been served.
However,
Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 alone have put in appearance and a reply has been filed
by the Chairman of the respondent- Bank. We have accordingly heard the learned counsel
who have appeared before us.
6. Mr.
Calla, the learned senior counsel for appellants has argued that the matter was
fully covered by the judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan vs. R.Dayal
1997(10)SCC 419 wherein it had been held that the vacancies to be filled by
promotion were to be filed under the rules which were in operation on the date
when the vacancies had occurred. Relying on and referring to an earlier
judgment in the case of Y.V.Rangaiah vs. J.Sreenivasa Rao (1983) 3 SCC 284 it
was opined as under:
This
Court has specifically laid (sic) that the vacancies which occurred prior to
the amendment of the Rules would be governed by the original Rules and not by
the amended Rules. Accordingly, this Court had held that the posts which fell
vacant prior to the amendment of the Rules would be governed by the original
Rules and not the amended Rules. As a necessary corollary, the vacancies that
arose subsequent to the amendment of the Rules are required to be filled in in
accordance with the law existing as on the date when the vacancies arose.
7. The
above legal position has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for
respondent Nos.6 &7. We are therefore of the opinion that the vacancies
which had occurred prior to the enforcement of the Rules of 1998 had to be
filled in under the Rules of 1988 and as per the procedure laid down therein.
We are therefore of the opinion that the judgment of the learned Single Judge
needs to be restored. We order accordingly.
8.
There is another aspect of the matter which needs to be taken care of. It has
been brought to our notice during the course of hearing that pursuant to the
order of Division Bench the exercise for promotion under the Rules of 1998 had
been carried out and that all 15 original respondents (present appellants) had
appeared in the written examination and been declared successful but the result
of 14 had been declared on 22nd November 2005 whereas the result of one, Ram Narayan
Meena appellant No.3 before us, had been kept in a sealed envelop as a
disciplinary enquiry was pending against him. It has however been pointed out
that Ram Narayan Meena had been subjected to a charge-sheet dated 09.11.2005 on
the basis of a complaint dated 16th June 2005, that is long after the
promotions had been made under the Rules of 1988, and as such he too should be
given the benefit of this judgment in so far as the promotion was concerned
though subject to the outcome of the proceedings against him. We find merit in
this plea as well. It needs to be highlighted that the promotion under the
Rules of 1988 had been made way back in September 2000 i.e. long before the
complaint had been made against Ram Narayan Meena. We are therefore of the
opinion that he too should be given the benefit of this judgment subject to the
outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. We accordingly allow the appeal in the
above terms. There will be no order as to costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
