JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard Sri Anil Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Ratan, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the counter and rejoinder-affidavits.
2. By this writ application, the petitioner has claimed promotion from clerical cadre to officer cadre on the ground that he is entitled to the marks allotted for experience of working in rural branches, which according to him, have been denied by the respondents on arbitrary ground, i.e., the cut-off date mentioned in the Circular dated 23.10.1992 was 1.12.1997. On this date, according to the Bank, petitioner was not actually working in a rural branch and as such, was not entitled to marks for working in rural branch. The petitioner has assailed the Circular dated 23.10.1992 as being unfair, arbitrary and on the ground that it provides a handle to the respondents to pick and choose or manipulate consideration of candidates for depriving them from being considered for promotion. He has alleged that though he has experience of working in rural branch of the Bank, he has not been awarded two additional marks.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent Bank has rejected the representation of the petitioner dated 3rd February, 1999 and has denied the marks to the petitioner for working in the rural branches . It has been alleged that the cut-off date was 1.12.1997 for promotion. Clause 3.4 of the promotion policy provides that two additional marks for two years service in the rural branches will be given to such candidates. This clause is as under:
"3.4. All those employees posted at a rural branch on the specified cut-off date for each promotion process will be granted two additional marks for each completed year of service in rural branch(es), subject to maximum of 10 marks."
4. Clause 3.4 of the promotion policy Staff Circular No. 4274 dated 4.5.1996 was struck down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of C.W.P. No. 1768 of 1999, decided on 14.1.2000, Manual Singh v. Union Bank of India and Ors. It was, however, clarified that this judgment shall operate prospectively and shall not affect the promotions already made.
5. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as clerk-cum-typist in the Bank on 16.4.1979. Promotion policy was circulated by the Bank on 23.10.1992 for giving promotion from clerical cadre to Officer cadre. The cut-off date mentioned in the Circular dated 23.10.1992 was 1.12.1997 at the relevant time. On 1.12.1997, the petitioner was not working in any rural branch. However, he was called for interview by a letter dated 27.7.1998. The promotion policy dated 23.10.1992 was to be given effect with effect from 1.9.1998.
6. The petitioner appeared, in the interview on 5th October, 1998 and obtained 89 marks out of total 150 marks. The petitioner made a representation to the Bank claiming weightage marks for working in rural area in promotion on the ground that he worked in Machhalishahr branch, which lies in rural area branch. The representation of the petitioner was rejected on 3rd February, 1999 on the ground that Machhalishahr branch of the Bank is a semi-urban branch and as such the petitioner is not entitled to weightage marks for working in rural area.
7. The petitioner submitted a fresh representation on August 1, 2000. In view of the Circular dated 18th July, 2000, issued by the Union Bank of India claiming that he should be given marks of working in the rural branch. According to the petitioner, all those employees who served in the rural branch, are entitled to the marks of working in the rural area branches. He further stated that ; the cut-off date has no relevance and has no nexus to the object. It is averred that giving marks to only those persons, who were in the rural branches on a particular date, is arbitrary and given undue advantage to such employees as employees are liable to be transferred from one branch to other branch. It is experience of working which is relevant and not working on a particular date, i.e., the cut off date for working in rural area, is arbitrary.
8. It is argued that the petitioner is entitled for marks for service in rural area for promotion in officer cadre with effect from 1.9.1998 and non-promotion of the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner would have been promoted, had marks for his working in the rural branches been awarded to him. Hence the respondents should be directed to give promotion to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.12.1998 by awarding him ten marks as he has experience of working in rural branch.
9. The respondent-Bank vide letter dated 3.10.2000 rejected the representation dated 1.8.2000. The circular dated 3.10.2000 was brought on record by means of an amendment vide Court's order dated 18.2.2002. By the amendment the petitioner has also challenged the letter dated 3.10.2000, by which the petitioner was informed that he is not entitled for the benefit of rural service in view of the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court.
10. The learned counsel for the respondents has contested the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the employees, who were posted in rural branch of the bank on the specified cut-off date i.e., 1.12.1997. only were eligible for two marks for each completed year of service in rural branches subject to a maximum of 10 marks. It was submitted that since the petitioner was not working at any rural branch of the Bank on the cut-off date, he is not entitled to any weightage of working in the rural branch. It is also submitted that the Bank filed S.L.P. No. (Civil) C.C. 3860 of 2000 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment and order dated 14.1.2000 of Punjab and Haryana High Court, which is still pending and notices have been issued.
11. Sri Vivek Ratan. learned counsel for the respondents urged that the Judgment dated 14.1.2000 of Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it absolutely clear that quashing of paragraph 3.4 of the promotion was prospective and hence the present writ petition is misconceived and is not maintainable. He further submitted that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy by way of appeal before the General Manager of Union Bank of India.
12. We have given our anxious consideration to the controversy. In our view, the whole purpose of giving weightage of two marks per year for service in rural area is for benefit of experience of the candidate in rural areas. It will be wholly unjust to lay down that the candidate must be actually working on the cut-off date in the rural branch. Suppose a person had experience of working in a rural branch for five years, but ten days before the cut-off date he is transferred to an urban branch, he will then lose ten marks for no fault of his. It would be very unfair and unjust to deprive him of his marks. Such an interpretation is against equity and has to be avoided. Purposive interpretation is well known method in law. The literal interpretation will defeat the purpose of the rule, hence the marks have to be awarded to advance justice. Reference can be made to Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Anr., (2000) 5 SCC 346. In the said case the Apex Court held :
"15. Statutes, it is often said, should be construed not as theorems of Euclid but with some imagination of the purposes which lie behind them and to be too literal in the meaning of words is to see the skin and miss the soul. The method suggested for adoption, in cases of doubt as to the meaning of the words used is to explore the intention of the Legislature through the words, the context which gives the colour, the context, the subject-matter, the effects and consequences or the spirit and reason of the law. The general words and collocation or phrases, howsoever wide or comprehensive in their literal sense are interpreted from the context and scheme underlying in the text of the Act. The decision in Utkal Contractors and Joinery (P.) Ltd. case also emphasises the need to construe the words in a provision in the context of the scheme underlying the other provisions of the Act as well, which ultimately was considered to be in tune with the object set out in the statement of the Objects and Reasons and in the Preamble. Apart from the fact that the observations contained in the decision have to be understood in the light of the issue raised and exercise undertaken by the Court therein, the fallacy in the submission on behalf of the appellant lies though not in the principles of construction to be adopted but in the assumption of the counsel to confine or restrict and construe the law in question to be one made to regulate the trade."
13. The question that cut-off date provided in the order, is arbitrary came up before the Apex Court in the case of Utkal Contractors and Joinery Put, Ltd, and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors., 1987 (3) SCC 279. The Apex Court also emphasised :
"It is settled that the words of an enactment are important as the context that general words are used in a statute is not in itself a conclusive reason why every case falling literally within them should be governed by that statute and the context of an Act may well indicate that wide or general words should be given a restrictive meaning. (Hatsbury 4th Edn. Vol. 44 page 874)."
14. In Attorney General v. H.R.K. Prince Earnest Augustus, Viscount Simonds said that :
"Words and particularly general words, cannot be read in isolation, their colour and content are derived from their context."
15. In Maunsell v. Olins, it has been observed that :
"all general words are open to inspection, many general words demand inspection, to see whether they really bear their widest possible meaning."
16. It was further observed that :
"Then rules of construction are relied on. They are not masters. They are aids to construction, presumptions or pointers. Not infrequently one 'rule' points in one direction, another in a different direction. In each case we must look at all relevant circumstances and decide as a matter of judgment what weight is attached to any particular 'rule'."
17. We are of the view that providing cut-off date for considering the experience of working in any rural branch has no relevance. It is the experience that is necessary and not working on a particular date. Wetghtage of working in the rural branches under Clause 3.4 of the Circular has to be given irrespective of the fact whether on cut-off date, he was posted in a rural branch or not. The interpretation of this clause has to be purposive and not literal or narrow. Such interpretation defeats the object and purpose and results in injustice to many, and hence such an interpretation has to be avoided.
18. We do not think that relegating the petitioner to alternate remedy will serve any purpose in this case, as we are deciding the controversy finally on merits.
19. We, therefore, hold that the words "posted in a rural branch on the specified cut-off date" mean that the employee has acquired the experience of working in rural area by the cut-off date, avoiding the literal meaning to give the employee benefit of his experience.
20. We further hold that an employee who has experience of working on the cut-off date in the rural branches, is entitled to be awarded two marks for every year of service subject to maximum of 10 marks irrespective of whether on the cut-off date, he is working in a rural branch or not.
21. In this view, we allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to award the benefit of 2 marks for each year to the petitioner working in rural area and allow him promotion, if he is entitled in the light of the ratio laid down in this judgment.