Service Law

Promotion

— Criteria — Seniority-cum-merit — Procedure for promotion on basis of, vis-à-vis the one based on merit-cum-seniority — Held, the policy which did not prescribe a minimum standard for assessing merit and which promoted candidates on the basis of comparative merit, with reference to total marks obtained by the eligible candidates, followed the merit-cum-seniority principle — It was not in consonance with the principle of seniority-cum-merit — B.V. Sivaiah, (1998) 6 SCC 720 reiterated — Promotion of employees in regional rural bank concerned made from clerical to supervisory post on the basis of the said policy despite repeated decisions of Supreme Court (including Sivaiah case) and High Court holding the procedure prescribed therein to be not in consonance with the principle of seniority-cum-merit prescribed for promotion under the Rules concerned — Appellant denied promotion each time as a result thereof — Held, promotion of Respondent 3 (junior to appellant) and non-promotion of the appellant by adopting the very same procedure was liable to be interfered with — Fact that minimum standard was provided for interview (one of the several determining factors for promotion) was of no consequence in absence of prescription of minimum standard for promotion — However, considering that the appellant was denied promotion for more than 16 years by repeatedly adopting the said erroneous procedure, and having regard to the fact that even under the merit-cum-seniority basis adopted by the Bank the appellant had secured high marks, held, no need to refer the matter for fresh consideration — With a view to do complete justice, appellant directed to be promoted as Field Supervisor from the date of promotion of Respondent 3 — He would be entitled to monetary benefits flowing from such promotion only prospectively, though the pay was to be refixed with reference to the retrospective date of promotion, (2006) 6 SCC 145-A

Constitution of India

— Arts. 142 and 136 — Exercise of power under Art. 142 to do complete justice — Service matter — Promotion — Grant of — Appellant denied promotion for more than 16 years by repeatedly adopting erroneous promotion policy in question despite repeated decisions of Supreme Court and High Court holding the said policy to be not in consonance with the principle of seniority-cum-merit prescribed for promotion under the Rules concerned — In such circumstances, held, it was not necessary to drive appellant once again to face the process of selection for promotion — Exercising power under Art. 142, Bank directed to promote appellant as a Field Supervisor with effect from the date his junior i.e. Respondent 3 was promoted, (2006) 6 SCC 145-B