Supreme Court of India
CHAIRMAN, RUSHIKULYA GRAMYA BANKversusBISAWAMBER PATRO & OTHERS
- Citation
- 2013 INSC 201
- Decided
- 2 April 2013
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- AFTAB ALAM
Holding
The employer has the discretion to fix a minimum merit threshold, subject to the relevant rules, and such a benchmark is not inconsistent with the principle of promotion by seniority‑cum‑merit.
Summary
The case concerned promotions in Rushikulya Gramya Bank under seniority‑cum‑merit rules. The bank issued a circular fixing a 60% aggregate mark as a benchmark for promotion, which the Orissa High Court struck down as violative of the promotion policy. The respondents challenged the select list, while the bank appealed. The Supreme Court examined earlier decisions and held that an employer may prescribe a minimum merit threshold, provided it is reasonable and within the rules, and that such discretion does not contravene the seniority‑cum‑merit principle. Consequently, the High Court’s decision was set aside, the writ petitions dismissed, and the bank’s promotion list affirmed. The appeals were allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the management of a bank can lay down a benchmark or minimum qualifying marks in addition to the criteria fixed by promotion rules for promotions on a seniority‑cum‑merit basis?
Subjects
promotionseniority-cum-meritminimum qualifying marksbenchmarkdiscretionservice lawbankingselection criteria
Judgment
[2013) 4 S.C.R. 239
CHAIRMAN, RUSHIKULYA GRAMYA BANK A
v.
BISAWAMBER PATRO & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 2760 of 2013)
APRIL 2, 2013
B
[AFTAB ALAM AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.]
Service Law - Promotion - On the basis of seniority-cum-
merit - Employer laying down a bench mark, besides the
criteria fixed by promotion rules - Propriety of - Held: The C
employer has discretion to fix minimum merit having in mind
requirements of the post.
The question for consideration in the instant appeals
was whether it was open to the management of the 0
appellant-Bank to lay down a benchmark, besides the
criteria fixed by the rules for grant of promotion on
seniority-cum-merit basis.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
E
HELD: The minimum necessary merit for promotion,
is a matter that is decided by the management, having in
mind the requirements of the post to which promotions
are to be made. The employer has the discretion to fix
different minimum merit, for different categories of posts, F
subject to the relevant rules. [Para 14] [246-G-H]
'
Rajendra Kumar Srivastava and Ors. v. Samyut
Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Others (2010) 1 SCC 335: 2009
(15) SCR 936 - relied on.
G
State of Kera/a N.M. Thomas (1976) 2 SCC 310: 1976
(1) SCR 906;Bhagwandas Tiwari v. Dewas Shajapur
Kshetriya Gramin Bank (2006) 12 SCC 574: 2006 (8) Suppl.
239 H
240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 4 S.C.R.
A SCR 760; B. V. Sivaiah v. K. Addanki Babu (1998) 6 SCC
720: 1998 (3) SCR 782 - referred to.
Case Law Reference:
1976 (1) SCR 906 referred to Para 10
8
2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 760 referred to Para 10
1998 (3) SCR 782 referred to Para 10
2009 (15) SCR 936 relied on Para 11
C CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
2760 of 2013.
From the Judgment & Order daed 12.02.2008 of the High
Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Writ Petition No. 13076 of 2004.
D
WITH
C.A. Nos. 2761, 2762, 2763, 2764, 2765, 2766, 2767 of 2013.
Dr. Lakshme Narsimha, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Bina
E Madhavan, Karan Kanwal (for Lawyer's Knit & Co.) for the
Appellant.
C.K. Sasi, Abhisth Kumar, P.P. Singh for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
AFTAB ALAM, J. 1. Leave granted in all the special leave
petitions.
2. All the appeals are at the instance of a Regional Rural
G Bank, namely, Rushikulya Gramya Bank, and the matter relates
to promotion from one scale to another. Out of the eight
appeals, six relate to promotion from Junior Management
Scale-I to Middle Management Scale-II and in the remaining two
appeals (arising from SLP (Civil) No.17974 of 2008 and
SLP(civil) No.18898 of 2008), the matter relates to promotion
H
CHAIRMAN, RUSHIKULYA GRAMYA BANK v. 241
BISAWAMBER PATRO [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
from Clerk to Junior Management Scale-I. A
3. The short question that arises in these appeals is
whether it is open to the management of the Bank to lay down
a benchmark, besides the criteria fixed by the rules for grant
of promotion on seniority-cum-merit basis. 8
4. The appellant - bank issued a circular No.024/2004-05,
dated June 23, 2004 notifying the vacancies inter alia in the
seventeen posts of Middle Management Scale-II and eight
posts of Junior Management Scale-I. The circular stated that
the process of promotion shall be conducted as per the C
promotion rules of the Government of India. For promotion to
the post of Middle Management Scale-II, the zone of
consideration was four times the number of vacancies and for
promotion to the post of Junior Management Scale - I, all
eligible candidates were permitted to take the exam. -0
5. The rules governing promotion from Junior
Management Scale-I to Middle Management Scale-II, in so far
as relevant for the present, are as under:-
*2 (a) to (c) xxxxxxxx E
(d) Whether promotion to be made on seniority basis or
merit:
Promotion shall be made on the basis of seniority- F
cum-merit.
(e) Eligibility: xxxxxxx
(f) Mode of Selection: The Selection of the
candidates shall be made G
by the committee on the
basis of written test,
interview and assessment
of Performance Appraisal
Reports for the preceding H
242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 4 S.C.R.
A five years as an officer in
Sealed/Field Supervisor.
(g) Composition of Committee: xxxxxxxxx
(h) Reckoning of the minimum xxxxxxxxx
8 eligibility:
(i) Number of candidates to
be considered for promotion: xxxxxxxxx
G) Selection process for
c promotion: The selection shall be on
the basis of performance in
the written test, interview
and performance Appraisal
·Report for preceding five
D years as per the division of
marks given below.
.(A) Written Test: 60 marks
(8) Interview: 20 marks
E
(C) Performance Appraisal 20 marks
Reports:
TOTAL marks: 100 marks
F (A) Written test (60 marks)
;The candidates shall be required to appear for
writt~h test comprising of two parts viz. Part (A) covering
Banking Law and pJactice of Banking and Part (8)
G covering Credit Policy, Credit Management including
Priority Sector, Economics and Management.
:60 marks allotted written test shall be further divided as
under:
H
CHAIRMAN, RUSHIKULYA GRAMYA BANK v. 243
BISAWAMBER PATRO [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
Part "A" 30 marks A
Part "B" 30 marks
A list of only those
candidates who secure
minimum 40% marks in
8
each part shall be
prepared and such
candidates shall be called
for interview.
(8) Interview (20 marks): c
There shall be no minimum
qualifying marks for the'
interview.
(C) Performance appraisal D
Reports (20) marks):
Performance Appraisal Reports for the preceding five
years shall be considered for the purpose of awarding
marks for promotion." E
In case of promotion from Clerk to Junior Management
Class-I scale the division of marks is as under:- ·
"(A) Written test 70 marks
F
(8) Interview marks 20 marks
(C) Performance Appraisal Reports 10 marks.
Total Marks . 100 marks. n
G
.70 marks allotted to written test are further divided as
under:
"English 35 marks
H
244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 4 S.C.R.
A
Bank Law Practice 35 marks
Total Marks 70"
6. A candidate in order to qualify must secure a minimum
B of 40 per cent marks each in English and banking law practice.
7. The appellant - bank, in addition to the requirement of
40% qualifying marks in the written test further fixed the
qualifying mark of 60% for general candidates and 55% marks
for SC/ST candidates on the aggregate marks comprising
C written test, performance appraisal reports and interview.
8. The names of all candidates who got 60% or above in
· the aggregate were put in the list for promotion strictly as per
their seniority. All candidates were promoted in order of
o seniority, irrespective of anyone among them having got marks
in excess of 60% in the aggregate.
9. The respondents in each of the appeals who were
unsuccessful in getting promotions, challenged the select list
E of the promoted candidates by filing writ petitions before the
Orissa High Court. The High Court heard W.P.(civil) No.14359/
2003 (giving rise to civil appeal, arising from SLP(Civil)
No.19292/2008)) as the leading case. It allowed the Writ
Petition holding that prescription of the benchmark of 60%
marks in the aggregate was in violation of the promotion policy
F and the rules governing the field. It, accordingly, allowed the Writ
Petition and directed the appellant-bank to make fresh selection
in accordance with the Rules. (The other writ petitions giving
rise to the other appeals were disposed of following the
judgment passed in W.P.(Civil) No.14359/2004).
G
10. In taking the view that the prescription of the minimum
qualifying marks in the aggregate was in contravention of
promotion based on seniority-cum-merit, the High Court relied
upon the decisions of this Court in State of Kera/a v. N.M.
H
CHAIRMAN, RUSHIKULYA GRAMYA BANK v. 245
BISAWAMBER PATRO [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
Thomas 1 , Bhagwandas Tiwari v. Dewas Shajapur Kshetriya A
Gramin Bank2 , and 8. V. Sivaiah v. K. Addanki Babu3. ·
11. In a more re9ent decision in Rajendra Kumar
Srivastava and Others v. Samyut Kshetriya Gramin Bank and
Others4 , this Court re-visited the issue of fixing a high B
percentage as the minimum qualifying marks for promotion on
seniority-cum-merit basis. It examined all the three decisions
(besides others) relied upon by the High Court, namely,
Bhagwandas Tiwari (supra), B. V. Sivaiah (supra) and N.M.
Thomas (supra).
c
12. In Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, the Court framed the
following two questions for consideration:
"8. On the contentions urged, the following two
questions arise for our consideration: D
(i) Whether minimum qualifying marks could be
prescribed for assessment of past performance and
interview, where the promotions are to be made on the
principle of seniority-cum- merit?
E
(ii) Whether the first respondent Bank was justified
in fixing a high percentage (78%) as the minimum
qualifying marks (minimum merit) for promotion?
13. Answering both the questions in the affirmative, the
F
Court on an analysis of the earlier decisions observed and held
that:
"13. Thus it is clear that a process whereby eligible
candidates possessing the minimum necessary merit in
the feeder posts is first ascertained and thereafter, G
1. (1976) 2 sec 310.
2. c2006} 12 sec 574.
3. (1998) 6 sec 120.
4. (2010) 1 sec 335. H
246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 4 S.C.R.
A promotions are made strictly in accordance with seniority,
from among those who possess the minimum necessary.
merit is recognised and accepted as complying with the
principle of "seniority-cum-merit". What would offend the
rule of seniority-cum-merit is a process where after
B assessing the minimum necessary merit, promotions are
made on the basis of merit (instead of seniority) from
among the candidates possessing the minimum necessary
merit. If the criteria adopted for assessment of minimum
necessary merit is bona fide and not unreasonable, it is
c not open to challenge, as being opposed to the principle
of seniority-cum-merit. We accordingly hold 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.
D
, 14. The next question is whether fixing of 78% as
minimum qualifying marks (that is, as the minimum
• necessary merit) is unreasonable and arbitrary. The Rules
in this case provide that the mode of selection is by
E interview and assessment of performance reports for the
preceding three years as officer Scale I. The seniority list
of officers in Scale I was published on 4-12-1996.
Thereafter, the promotion process was held by earmarking
60 marks for assessment of performance reports (at the
F rate of 20 marks per year) and 40 marks were allotted for
interview. The officers possessing the minimum qualifying
marks of 78%, were then promoted on the basis of
seniority. What should be the minimum necessary merit for
· promotion, is a matter that is decided by the management,
G having in mind the requirements of the post to which
promotions are to be made. The employer has the
discretion to fix different minimum merit, for different
categories of posts, subject to the relevant rules. For
example, for promotions at lower levels, it may fix lesser
H minimum qualifying marks and fix a comparatively higher
CHAIRMAN, RUSHIKULYA GRAMYA BANK v. 247
BISAWAMBER PATRO [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
minimum qualifying marks for higher posts." A
14. The decision of the High Court, thus, appears to be
clearly contrary to the view taken by this Court in Rajendra
Kumar Srivastava.
15. The decision of the High Court is, accordingly, set B
aside. The writ petitions filed by the respondents before the
Orissa High Court are dismissed. The select list prepared by
the appellant-bank is affirmed. The appeals are allowed but with
no order as to costs.
c
K.K.T. Appeals dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "promotion"Sign in to search