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 senioritycum-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 senioritycum-merit could be made applicable – The Division Bench, not only 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-cummerit, 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-cummerit. 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 benchmark of having obtained minimum 40% qualifying marks in the written test and having obtained minimum 12 marks each out of 20 marks each for interview and performance appraisal reports respectively and those candidates be promoted in the order of seniority, irrespective of anyone among them having obtained more marks. [Paras 12, 13][600-B-G]
Chairman, Rushikulya Gramya Bank v. Bisawamber Patro (2013) 4 SCC 376 : [2013] 4 SCR 239; Rajendra Kumar Srivastava v. Samyut Kshetriya Gramin Bank (2010) 1 SCC 335 : [2009] 15 SCR 936 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.