1. Petitioner was appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier in the respondent Ballia Etawah Gramin Bank in 1989. He has approached this Court challenging selection/promotion list dated 13.1.2012, whereby a total number of 89 persons have been promoted in the managerial scale. The order is assailed on the ground that criteria for promotion has not been followed and petitioner's claim has been arbitrarily ignored.
2. During pendency of the writ petition, an application for impleadment has been filed, whereby one Ajay Kumar Upadhyay is sought to be impleaded. A reply to this impleadment has been filed stating that concern person i.e. Ajay Kumar Upadhyay has already died. This fact is not disputed. Impleadment application, therefore, is consigned to records.
3. An amendment application has also been filed, in which it is stated that during pendency of the writ petition, petitioner has been promoted in the year 2014. It is contended that petitioner is entitled to promotion from the date such benefit has been granted to Ajay Kumar Upadhyay.
4. Counter affidavit has been filed to which rejoinder affidavit has also been filed.
5. I have heard Sri Sudhakar Pandey, appearing for the petitioner and Sri G.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents, and have perused the materials brought on record.
6. Criteria for promotion to the post of an Officer in JMG Scale-1 is contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition. As per the circular the criteria for promotion is seniority-cum-merit. The circular provides that all persons, who are eligible, would have to appear in an examination of 100 marks, wherein 70 marks would be awarded based upon the performance in the written test, 20 marks in interview and 10 marks for assessment of last three years working. The circular further provides that all those persons, who have secured 40% marks, would be included in the list and as per the seniority the candidates would be promoted. According to counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has done well having scored 57 marks out of 70 marks in the written test but his claim has been arbitrarily ignored. Submission is that petitioner is placed at serial no.6 and is entitled to promotion.
7. A counter affidavit has been filed, in which it is stated that criteria for promotion was seniority-cum-merit, and that all persons who scored 40% or above marks were included in the list of seniority and based upon their seniority benefit of promotion has been granted to the candidates. Submission is that last selected candidate has been appointed in 1984, whereas petitioner has been appointed in 1989, and therefore on the touch stone of seniority, petitioner has failed to qualify and therefore, promotion has been denied to him.
8. The only selected candidate, who is said to be impleaded is Ajay Kumar Upadhyay, has already died. None of the other selected candidates are parties to this petition. Without impleading the selected persons, this Court is not justified for quashing the order for which prayer is made in this petition. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of B.V. Sivaiah and others Vs. K. Addanki Babu and others, AIR 1998 SC 2565, in order to submit that in the absence of selected candidate having been impleaded as a party, the writ petition itself would not be maintainable. Reliance is also placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Srivastava and others Vs. Samyut Kshetriya Gramin Bank and others, passed in Civil Appeal No.6691 of 2001, decided on 17.11.2009, as also a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rajeev Ranjan Tripathi Vs. Purvanchal Gramin Bank and others, 2010 (4) AWC 3715.
9. Perusal of the records would clearly go to show that the criteria for promotion was seniority-cum-merit. All those persons, who secured 40% or above marks, were included in the list of eligible candidates. Admittedly, all selected persons have qualified the examination and the petitioner has not been selected only because his appointment was of the year 1989, whereas last selected candidate was appointed in 1984. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no error in the select list published by the Bank. Petitioner, consequently, is not entitled to any relief.
10. Writ petition, accordingly, is dismissed.
11. It is, however, clarified that benefits already granted to petitioner in the form of promotion in a subsequent exercise would not be adversely effected on account of dismissal of this petition.
Order Date :- 17.12.2019 Anil