Shaffique,J
This writ appeal is filed by the writ petitioner against the judgment dated 03/12/2009 in W.P.C.No.27949/2009. The writ petition was filed seeking to quash Exts.P2,P3, P5 and P14 and for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to the office of the Area Manager/Senior Manager, is duly qualified for the post of General Manager and for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to recast the seniority list Ext.P10 by giving the petitioner due promotions.
2. The facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner was appointed as a Manager Trainee in the year 1977. He was promoted to the post of Area Manager/Senior Manager as per Ext.P1 proceedings dated 21/03/1989. He was transferred to Edarikode branch as Manager as per Ext.P2 dated 14/06/2002. He represented that he being a senior Manager, cannot be designated as Branch Manager. He received a reply dated 29/08/2002 referring to an award passed by the National Industrial Tribunal (for short 'NIT') which inter alia provided that all the Officers who were promoted as Senior Managers and Area Managers before the NIT award were equated to Middle Management Scale-II (MM-II) of sponsor bank, and therefore the petitioner remains as a Scale-II Officer since March 1989. It is further observed that being an officer of Scale–II cadre, his placement as Manager of a medium branch was justified and only Scale -III officers can be posted as Area Managers. Petitioner submitted a representation by way of Ext.P4 which was rejected as per Ext.P5 dated 19/12/2002. Petitioner relies upon Ext.P6 seniority list published by the 1st respondent bank in which respondents 4 and 5 were shown as his juniors. The contention of the petitioner is that the NIT award qualifies Managers as Scale-I and Scale-II based on the volume of business. Area Managers and Senior Managers were to draw Scale-II pay. Area Managers/Senior Managers with 8 years standing were to be considered for the post of General Manager drawing pay in Scale-III. It is contended that Scale-II Managers who were under the administrative control of the Area Manager/Senior Manager also could be considered for promotion as Scale-III, General Manager. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is that the post of Area Manager/Senior Manager has to be treated as Scale-III post from the date of categorization. He contended that the 4th respondent was promoted as Area Manager overlooking him in the year 1986. The petitioner challenged the same by filing O.P.No.3217 of 1987. The matter was referred to Division Bench. In the meantime, petitioner was promoted as an Area Manager. The Original Petition was therefore disposed of by judgment dated 27/07/2000 recording it as infructuous.
3. Petitioner also appeared for interview for the post of Scale-III category along with his juniors in Scale-II post. This, according to him, was without prejudice to his rights as stated in Ext.P9. It is contended that on account of the arbitrary action, his seniority had been affected and he had to suffer reduction in rank vide seniority list published on 08/12/1989 as Ext.P10. Though he challenged the illegality by filing O.P.No.2524 of 2003, the same came to be disposed of directing him to submit a representation. He submitted Ext.P13 representation on 01/09/2005 which was disposed of by proceedings of the Chairman in terms of Ext.P14. It was inter alia contended that he should not have been reduced in rank. He was working in the post of Area Manager for the last 15 years and when there is upgradation of the said post, his position cannot be equated to a lesser post of Manager.
4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent inter alia stating that the 1st respondent is a Regional Rural Bank (for short 'RRB') established by the Central Government in terms of Section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks' Act 1976. Its sponsoring bank is Canara Bank. The bank is governed by the provisions of RRB Act. It is stated that upto 21/03/1989, petitioner was working as Manager in branches and administrative units of the bank. He was promoted to the post of Area manager/Senior Manager with effect from 21/03/1989 without any change in the pay scale. He was working at various administrative units/sections of the bank. The award of NIT was implemented in the bank in March 1991 with effect from 01/09/1987. As per the said award, the post of Area Manager/Senior Manager was equated with Officer Scale-II cadre of the sponsor bank namely Canara Bank. This was communicated to all staff of the bank by circulars. As a consequence to the said award, the petitioner was equated to the cadre of Officer Scale-II with effect from 21/03/1989. The controlling authority of the bank i.e. National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development (NABARD) as per their letter dated 17/09/1994, ordered that as the Revised Recruitment & Promotion Rules for RRBs were under consideration of the Government and until a final decision is taken, the promotion from Officer Scale-I to Officer Scale-II shall follow the same procedure for promotion for Officer Scale-II Area Managers/Senior Managers. It is further indicated that as per notification dated 29/07/1988, the Regional Rural Banks - Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees Rules 1998 was brought into force. The said rules were adopted by the Board of Directors of the Bank. The bank identified 17 vacancies in Scale-III cadre to be filled up by promotions from Scale-II officers in accordance with the new promotion rules. Petitioner participated in the selection process. But he was not successful and therefore he continued in Scale-II post. Respondents therefore contended that there is no arbitrariness or illegality in the action.
5. The learned Single Judge, on a consideration of the relevant facts, found that since the petitioner was designated as Scale-II officer pursuant to an award of the NIT and he was considered for promotion to Scale-III officer post, he has no legal right to demand that he should be placed as Scale-III officer. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
6. The appellant, who appears as party in person submitted an argument note. He also relied upon the judgments in Union of India v. Zorawar Singh and Jagdish Prasad [(1982) 1 SCC 421], Jagadheesh Prasad Sinha and Others v. Bhagavath Prasad and others [(1989) 3 SCC 610], Gorkha Security Services v. Government of NCT, Delhi [2014(3) KLT SN 53 (C.No.67) SC] and Om Prakash Chautala v. Kanwar Bhan [2014(1) KLT SN 66 (C.No.89) SC. The main contention urged is that after having promoted the petitioner to the post of Area Manager/Senior Manager which is taken note of by this Court in Ext.P7 judgment dated 27/07/2000, without even taking any proceedings for redesignating the petitioner as a Manager coming under Scale-II and divesting him for the substantive post of Area Manager, there was no reason to transfer him as per Ext.P2 as Manager at Edarikode branch. It is contended that the aforesaid action clearly amounts to reduction from a higher post to lower post without any proceedings in that behalf. It is further contended that there is no provision in the award passed by the NIT to treat the Area Managers as Managers. That apart, the posting of the petitioner as Area Manager was effective from 21/03/1989. The award was implemented with effect from March 1991 with retrospective effect from 01/09/1987 and the transfer order is issued only on 14/06/2002. Until such time, the petitioner was working as Senior Manager. Therefore, the appellant seeks for setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which according to him, has not been properly considered. According to him, the reduction in rank amounts to violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
7. First of all, coming to the judgments relied upon, in Zorawar Singh and Jagdish Prasad (supra) a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that when there is no material to indicate that the appointment of certain employees in the cadre of Chief Ticket Inspector was of a temporary character or in an officiating basis. It has to be assumed that their promotion was on permanent basis and if so, the reversion is violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.
8. In Jagadheesh Prasad Sinha (supra), Supreme Court had taken note of the observation made by the High Court relying upon judgment in K.S.Vora v. State of Gujarat [(1988)1 SCC 311]. In regard to seniority and promotion the Courts have always taken note of the fact that those who stood together and fell in line to proceed further have to be provided all opportunities in respect of their avenues of promotion alike without breaking that order, so that one who ranks higher in the grade may not go down in due course of service.
9. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Gorkha Security Services (supra) relates to blacklisting of a contractor which has no application to the facts of the present case. Same is the position with respect to judgment in Om Prakash Chautala (supra) wherein the question was in regard to observations to be made in a judgment. That was a case in which Supreme Court observed that reputation of a person cannot be hurt even while rendering a judgment. It is held that when a court deals with a matter that may affect a person's reputation, the normative principles of law are to be cautiously and carefully adhered to.
10. The short question involved in the Writ Appeal is whether the respondent's action in treating the petitioner as a Scale-II officer was bad in law. Ext.P5 dated 19/12/2002 would show that Senior Managers and Area Managers were equated with Scale-II post of the sponsor bank. After implementation of NIT award in 1991, the bank promoted 145 Scale-I officers to Scale-II cadre. It is stated that all these Scale-II officers are interchangeable with the administrative units and branches as per NABARD letter dated 17/09/1994. Scale II officers are designated as Area Managers/Senior Managers/Branch Managers depending upon on their placements. It was in 2001 that Government of India permitted RRBs to create Scale-III posts for heading Area Offices, Head Office Sections and large branches. Accordingly in June 2002, 17 scale II officers were promoted to Scale-III cadre to head 7 area offices, 7 head office sections and 3 large branches. These promotions were affected as per the RRB Rules, 1998. Since the petitioner had undergone the selection process and was not successful, he had to continue as Branch Manager of a medium branch.
11. Repeated representations sent by the petitioner also do not evolve any response. He claimed the status of Area Manager/Senior Manager. In Ext.P14, the bank had considered his representation dated 01/9/2005. It is stated that the effective date of award of NIT is 01/09/1987. At the relevant time, the petitioner was put in the post of Manager which was equated to the post of Officer Scale-I in the sponsor bank. The post of Area Manager/Senior Manager in RRBs are equated to the post of Officer-Middle Management Scale-II of the sponsor bank. Therefore, when he was promoted on 21/03/1989, he was equated to Officer MM Scale-II and continued as such. It is further indicated that as per communications issued by Government of India through NABARD it is clarified that the post of Area Manager/Senior Manager who comes under Scale II officers in administrative units were interchangeable with Scale-II Managers working in branches. The cadre of Scale III officers were created only as per letter dated 19/09/2001 of the sponsor bank. The representation was rejected on the ground that posting requested by the petitioner could not be given to him as the said posts are to be held by officers of Scale III cadre as per the man power norms of the bank. The contention of the petitioner is with reference to the judgment of this court in O.P.No.3212 of 1987 in which this Court only observed that the writ petition has become infructuous as, in the meantime, the petitioner was promoted as Area Manager.
12. But, having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, the question to be considered is whether there is a reduction in rank as far as the petitioner is concerned. It is not in dispute that as per the award passed by the NIT, the post of Area Manager/Senior Manager in RRBs are equivalent to Scale II post in the sponsor bank. Therefore petitioner cannot contend that there is a reduction in rank without notice to him. The posts of Area Manager/Senior Manager have to be compared with that of the posts in the sponsor bank and therefore the petitioner cannot aspire to continue in the post of the Area Manager/Senior Manager when award has been implemented. True that he was continuing as an Area Manager in the administrative units even after the award was passed. There was no change in pay and therefore it was a Scale II post when compared to his sponsor bank. But, when scale III cadre had been created and 17 posts had been declared to be managed by various officers in the said cadre, necessary selection process was conducted from among persons under Scale II post. After the said selection process, necessarily Scale III category can be managed only by such officers. Therefore there is nothing wrong in the 1st respondent issuing Ext.P2 by transferring the petitioner as Branch Manager of Edarikode branch. Therefore, this is not a case where a unilateral action was taken by the respondent bank to reduce the rank of the petitioner but it is the consequence of the award passed by the NIT which was in public domain. Necessary circulars in this regard has also been issued. Scale III post was not available during the relevant time. The posts in which the petitioner was working was equated to Scale II post and in the selection process for Scale III post, the petitioner did not become eligible.
In the result, we do not find that any ground exists for setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and accordingly this Writ Appeal is dismissed.
(ASHOK BHUSHAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr