Supreme Court of India
RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA & ORS.versusSAMYUT KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK & ORS
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 1239
- Decided
- 17 November 2009
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- R V RAVEENDRAN
Holding
Prescribing a minimum qualifying mark of 78% to assess the minimum necessary merit for promotion does not violate the seniority‑cum‑merit principle and the promotion process is valid.
Summary
The appellants, senior officers of Samyukt Kshetriya Gramin Bank, challenged their non‑selection for promotion to Scale II (Area Manager/Senior Manager) on the ground that the bank’s promotion process, which required a minimum qualifying score of 78% based on performance appraisal and interview, violated the seniority‑cum‑merit principle and was arbitrary. The bank had adopted a procedure approved by its Board, allocating 60 marks to performance over three years and 40 marks to interview, and promoted those who met the 78% threshold in order of seniority. The Supreme Court examined the meaning of seniority‑cum‑merit, held that the employer may prescribe a reasonable minimum merit standard and that a 78% cut‑off for a senior post is not excessive or arbitrary. Consequently, the Court found no infirmity in the promotion process and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether fixing a minimum qualifying mark of 78% for promotion breaches the seniority‑cum‑merit principle.
- Whether the 78% threshold is unreasonable, arbitrary or violative of service rules.
- Whether the promotion process adopted by the bank is valid under the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Other Employees) Rules, 1988.
Subjects
seniority‑cum‑meritpromotionminimum qualifying marksRegional Rural Bankservice rulesarbitrarinessemployment law
Judgment
[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.~. 936 .
A RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA & ORS.
V.
SAMYUTKSHETRIYA GRAMIN·BANK &'()RS:
· (Civil Appeal No:~691·of2001) ,.
NOVEMBER),( 2009 ·. - , , '
B
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
• • - f •
, 'I
SERVICE LAW: "i "-.
REGIONAL RLJRAL BANKS '(APPOINTMENT AND
PROMOTION OF OFF/GERS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES)
C RULES, 1988: - · •· •
r. 5 - Second Schedule, E(lt,Y 1 - Promdtion .:..: Criteria
being seniority-cum-merit - Provi~ion 'prescribing ininimum
r
qualifying marks - Promotion to Area ·Manager/Senior
Manager in Scale-I/- Management prescribing'78% minimum
D qualifying marks for assessment 9f pa~t performance and
interview - Held: Prescribing rhin'im'um qualify~n'g marks_ to_
ascertain th er minimum merit necessary for disch'afg{n'g the
functions of higher post, is not violative of the concept of
promotion by seniority-cum-merif ~ Where the ass'essmerit'of
E minimum merit is with reference to previous pifrfdrmancii
record (Annual Confidential Records) and/or by·inteiview, a~
contrasted from a written examination, prescriptionrof78% as·
minimum marks, will not be considered astunreasonably high'
- What should be the minimum necessary merit for.promotion,
is a matter that is to be decided by the management, having
F in mind the requirements of the ·post to which pii:infotion's are
to be made - The employer has the discretion to fix•diffe'rent
minimum merit, for different categories of posts, subject to the
relevant Rules- In the instant case, the post of officf";·-Gradell·
(Area Manager and Senior Manager) is a very senior position, .
,
<
G next only to the top post of General Manager - As the officers
I
promoted to Scale II were required to head largerb'rahches or
departments in the Head Office, sho"uldetirf§-·high'ef
responsibilities and virtually competing with commercial banks,
it cannot be said that the fixing the minimum qualifying 'marks ·
H 936
RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA v. SAMYUT 937
KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK
at 78% is exqessive, unreasonable or arbitrqry. A
· Union of India vs. Lt. Gen. Rajendra Singh Kadyan 2000
(6) SCC 698; B. V. Sivaiah vs. K. Addanki Babu 1998 (6) SCC
720.and.State of Kera/a vs. N.M. Thomas 1976 (6) SCC 310,
referred to.'::: c 2;, ,v; s .v .:- 1 ·, ) . •
~ t- Bhagwan'aas· v.s·.,
fiwafi tie was sHajapur Kshetriya Gram s in
Bari/(:2006 (12) s·cc 574;'i:lisflnguished. ·. - . '
··r··.·nt·jrvy•1.-., ··"···· ·1••· . , '
··~ · " '( · Case Lav/Reference :
,t: f ':, .. ~~r '; I.I ~,.. ', ·~ 1'."'• ·:~ 1, .J- { 1 1
2006,(12)
. 1 ' , I ; J ..J j
SCC,574
". 4 l ....,
distinguished.
C. ._'
' ,...
-Para
-
5
1998 (6) SCC 720 referred Jo_ • ,~~ .' P.ara.-5.
~.~-~o_oo (6) ~~9.. 6.9~ :,-. 1t ·dr~ferr~d ~<;>,· .,, ·. - Para 7,
c
.,,\1976 (6) SCC '310 ,.:r . referred to Para 7 · .r
.CIVIL APPEtLATE.JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No .. 6691.
of 200111 091"• ',:'JJ ·. · '-·. ;~ · .• or ·; r:: · l! ·
t>From the Judgmenf&'Order dated104!07~2oorot the High'
Court: df Judicature at Allahabad in C1vil Misc: Writ Petition No. D
1
3151 1 of.;19H7. :; -r:,1 ..1l0:,- · · ;· · 1 L h-. _ i - ·
4
;.•, P'.S • Pa twa;lia:-i, ::-sidarth Luthra•, c·. b. :Si"hgh','" Sunny
11
ChouC:lh.afy;Aetityal Sitlgh, Vaifagya var~h~n; fodhe Appella)lts. ·
· A'r10d;'.Fcr'ct1auciharY'. 06P. G'aggar; Dirteshkum~'r Garg,
1 1
s~~Jt~:n~ra. ·~~ ~·~~w~:,~(~:.$ing~·. t0~nc?i,s:~x~ri~.:,~~jrlis.h Kumar E
SmgH,Jlrshad AttrRaa; forthe'Respondents. ,
~-. t
The ...
Order of the Court was.delivered by
d"lf"I \ ::i~t~ 'l. \in F -, .; J. i~I ~' "')!.: --~ :.Jo -
I • (' • . I r .
: 'R:V.RA
,.If ..... ,
VEEN
·"iJ1~ ". r,j
ORAN, J:.
.:;:~·::..: ~•~-
1. The
. . . . ,:...
appellants r:
a·re, employees .
t";" . ..., ~ 1. ·'~
of ~he~~rst_:~~~e~n.C!~~t, ~~~~·..h,G1Y'OQ._be~n ~ppomte.~ ~qet~een, ,
197~0Wld ::} 918?; 1 ~y ~fl<;>,tiftc:;ft19n qateg;}~,9.:1 ~8~. -!h~ Central : . F
Government in exer~is~.,p~powers.,conf~rred .unde:r se9tion 17 :
readt with . ~·
section
. (''• •, • tr.
29 ofthe Provincial Rural Banks! Act, 1976
t ''. ,;." ~ •.. .~ ( ' •·•I '.I ... f '' . ' ' .
franiea 1t9~r;~RegtopaJR~r~JrBaJ*~· (ARP9imment a11.d ~remotion
of Officers"'and'Othef'EmRloyees)
' i;:"" ·"' ·• ~1j"':\• r-1 •'"(
~
Rules,:tl1988
..
('Rules' for short).~
'~I~ ..... ~ 'r '' .... , ...., 'I .,_,
Rule ~5 of th~ ;RqletPtrs>~~d~d t~~t'. al!_ y~~~p,·~ie~ spo~l.d, be filled ; 3G
up by deputat1of1, promot1on·or_~~rect recru1tmen_t, macc9rdance .
. - r{ ''·"'~''' 1~,,1:f' ~-'
i-1J ·"1. ~ • ·,, ~, • . ·.,
with pr-0v1s1ons contained mthe Second Schedule to the Rules.
Entryiin
' ,., rl
the' ....Second Schedule'. felatEid
.> ,)-. "'~ - ' ' ,... ..., !"'
to recruitr:lieQt
. , 0 l •~ ' ' :
to the posts I . I •. I
of Area Manager or Senior Manage{(jn Scale II). It provided that
all theljposfg of :A:rg~'MaAci'gerW~nd')Se'nfotMari~gers shouid H be '
938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A filled by promotion from among the confirmed officers (in Scale
I) working in the bank on the basis of seniority-cum-:merit. It ~-
prescribed the educational qualification (graduate) and minimum
period of service in the feeder cadre (eight years as an officer
in the concerned regional rural bank). It also prescribed the mode
of selection by promotion as "Interview and assessment of
B
performance reports for the preceding three years period as
officers". Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 provided that the Staff Selection
Committee shall follow the procedure determined by the Board
for .selecting candidates for appointment or promotion, in ....
""":'
accordance with the guidelines issued by· the Central
c Government from time to time.
2. At the 131 st meeting of the Board of Directors of the first ·
respondent bank held on 29.11.1996, the following· procedure
for promotion of officers from scale I to scale 11 was approved·:
"After considering the guidelines contained in the
D Government of India's letter dated 23rd September, 1988.
and the Letter no. 823 dated 7th October,· 1996 of the
A
National Bank, the Board passed a resolution that 60 points
be earmarked on the basis of work done during the previous
three years in the Selection procedure for promotion on the
Scale II posts and 40 points be given for interview and in
E
this mannerthe promotion procedure should be completed.
Also,.an information. in this behalf be given to the National
Bank."
In pursuance ofthe above, the eligible candidates (officers
F
Scale I), including appellants were considered and interviewed
on 16. 12. 1996 and 17.12 .1996 and a select list was published
.>-
on 20.12.1996 promoting 64 officers (respondents 4 to 67) from
scale I to scale 11 with effect from 20.12.1996.
3. Appellants 1 to 7 were not selected. Many who were
selected, were their juniors. The appellants allege that their
G service and conduct were good· and there· were no adver~e
entries against them and therefore, they ought to have been
promoted from Officer: scale I to scale II. They therefore filed a
writ petition before the Allahabad High Court (WP No.3151/
)( '
1997). for quashing the entire promotion process of the first
H respondent bank from scale I to scale. II culminating in the order·
RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA v. SAMYUT 939
KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
dated 20.12.1996 and for a direction to the first respondent bank A
, , _1. to undertake the promotion process afresh. The appellants also
sought quashing of the resolution of the Board of Directors dated
29.11.1996 prescribing the promotion procedure.
4. The respondent bank resisted the said petition by filing
a counter defending the promotions. During arguments, the High B
Court secured the original records from the bank to ascertain
the procedure followed by the bank in the selection. The High
>· Court also directed that the relevant documents be brought on
record. Accordingly, the relevant documents were filed by the
Bank with an additional affidavit, wherein the Bank described
the selection procedure followed by it, as follows : C
"That when the proposal for promotion came before the
-
Board, the department of personnel under the direction of
the Chairman prepared complete summary giving the past
history and the proposals for selection procedure. A thick
booklet was prepared and in chapter V of the same· the D
details for the procedure for selection were given. This book
was part of the agenda put before the Board of Directors in
its meeting of 23.9.1996 in which the process was approved
with certain modification. A copy of the proceedings of the
Board meeting is Annexure A to this affidavit. E
That the whole matter has to be again presented before the
Board in its meeting dt. 29.11.96, as in the meantime a letter
was received from NABARD giving certain directions. The
Board in this meeting adopted the process given in chapter
V with certain modifications in the process as desired in the
letterof the NABARD dated 7.10.1996 is Annexure B to this F
affidavit and a copy of the NABARD letter dated 7.10.1996
is Annexure C to this affidavit.
That the Chapter V of the Booklet which has been approved
by the Board with modifications is also being filed as
Annexure D to this affidavit. G
~ That in the end of chapter V it is provided that the qualifying
)(" marks will be 78% and those who will secure 78% or above
would be eligible for promotion.
That the selection Committee put these marks obtained on
the seniority list and according to seniority those who were H
940 SUPREME COURT ,REPORTS [2,009] .1:5i (f.O.C:>.~~)-~.C;R.
A,\ linl9L!fl~L~li9l9t~; tl}ey,J:u,w_~ l:>~~fl.Promoted.1Thiswas .done 1 ·inr~L .i. ~
02 .~C.fRLQ:~.Q?~, ~ith th.~rPf~l'!~i§!EM~f rs-e 11:iOfity~~um c:metitttAs 01
1
bs~l!c!l.~~~!e.J,smQJhJng ~n;mg 1in.;f9Uowjng·tliis BBilcedu_re:1guo2
That none 0Uhose;petitioners·cquldlsecur~i.7a%m"ark'S a"rid9S
gnDe~ge 1t~~Y3Y¥~~,[l~t seJ~cte~t/i >lnsd ;nsbnoq29, eriT ~
Br '1glfhe 1High:3CO~!f!.rafterJcons'idering~tn'e1material >rrla<:iEP B
,:j avai~~bl-e~a nd respective 1oontemtions IEpa:s'sed3.tnel impug ned'JJ
orderdatetJ 4~:7.12001 1?-wherebyJtuph-ela the':process ol•Selection.srlt ·
It heid;tgaHheJwo:stag.e.prbcess'aaoptea:by:t1ie1bali~·~tnef.firSt::>J -{
prep.ar:ir:ig;allist•of~candidates>who:se-Curedl:the!minimom'>of:.i78)91
c marks:(aggregate) ini.the~performante'"app11aisal;a·t1c:r1intervievit,ls8
:Jand the secondc..promoting11tl]e fcandictatesJwho)setureaflthe'3rlt
migjrJl ~J?l;'!J)9r~~' §jri.G:tlYc.~mJM~ ~§lsi~ t.Of f9enjority 71Satisfied~the
SeQ!q~i!Y,:_GJ~ (13-!!' ~ r!tJ §ftj t~ rj_a, fQ.fcp[OfTI.Gtjqri rrihe ;said) de.cis iGn1 is
ch~l.l~~g~~ cln 1 ~~ lsimP~C11Jl:>YJSP~.PJaJ:leav.e qe1q nsrm 1bfi J srli
0
>1:5!J lhi$fGontendfad~by:\the; ap pellants:t.h~at4he:.ro-ortcep1rbf
D opromotion::byJ·se:nibrity.;cum:-:ni.eritpdid'.:'.not C<»f'l'tem'plate
prescribing of!miDimum1qualifyingilmarks~for~.ass'essnier1frof
performa_nce/iritetyiew~ before;applyjng.:the:prineipl~af.serii5rity
forpromo.tipn:~t.·is.conten~edlthatTestrictirigtliapromoti6n·.to-io1i:ly
tho§~;w.ho~ecure,dJb~:niinimµ!ll:qualifyin~rliatks~ was'ViblatiVe
E of the_ seniority-~ur:n;meritrptindple!tltis~Jurt~ei:;co~fei'fded•t~~t
3
eVeJ;IJ1fs~tlY:19U1_aJ1fymg. 0.:1~r~~f!fQ1JJC:!:b~e:;pre$cmbe_d(fori1assess1ng
the1gJjQ !Qi! !:lmi!W..P~~.s.?,ryrr;n~fit[~quJreg to;rneeHhe efficiem:yfbf
adfBj.p,is_~P.Y~B~·rHte:-fi0 ptj~n.J~f1,,aD gxtremelyrh.1gh mark1of178rout
of_ 1Bi~Lq~J ~u.1:~llf;y~ng?.ma.rJ;s.;1 rh~.cb~~@;:,~ft~ct~of:~convert~n,~~ctne
F cnt~mf3: 1 P~EPft9filOJ!.O.IJ.::[r9!T:l:~sJm1.onJy.~c;µm~i:t1ent fto;tnent-:cum-
'=seril~rjty: ilil"t~(?RP.ella,nJs~RJece,d·strqQg:r,el.iance~on•the'decisions
of t!]iJsGq,u,rt,jrt~Nf:; Siv.~Jflb :V.$. (l)~Acl.c!9nki. §l~bu!1998"(6) SGC
720] and Bhagwandas Tiwari v_s,·dJ.ewas:rShajapurJKshetriya
Gramin Bank r200.6 .(12) ,SCC :SZ~P~in~unn.ort .of1 thejr
cont~~ng~~~,~~~;~ '0~;;·~: ·~,!~~;;·~~il'~~·;~~·rl~~·~~~;;e· erl;-.~ci
G D 6. On the contentions urged,J.hetfQ'lloWimg}MO!questio.ris
ariscrrt~f1 (?;~~~9.-n~~rireAf81i·61q zi ti v lstqsrl:> 10 bri9 er!J 11 tsrlT •
9 vfHJs 10\/Y~tbE3JJ·m:i11i1Jt.t1tn1 q1:1aliJ¥ingN'!lar.ks lcoui'aEb~e - ·"'-
prescribed for assessmentofipastqjeH:t,0·nnar'lceahd
r. ~ b9n'' interv,ieyv., lw,l:ier~ th§ erqmpti9fl§ ~[~):10.J~~~ made r0n
1\.,.) 1 ~ d;;..~,.\...J\,. c,/.1i.,., 1 , .....,....,. __,, .~ iNI ~~ -'.._. •
H H G"lffN 0 dh~cRf!r~ip!~1Rf.~~~n1~r~tV;;<el31Jl.:;rt!~fjt~i1 '{tiloinsa slit
RAJENDRA
-
KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
. v. SAMYUT 941
_, KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK [RV RAVEENDRAN, J.]
(ii) Whether the first respondent bank was justified: in. A
~:--c . 1,i;c ~)$i~~.~ h.J9!U~~~-~-eptage (78°/~) as the mi~imum
1e '. ~~--i: .9~';11!fymg_m~r~s (m1nimµIT!-IT!e_r!l)-·fqr~pf.om9t1on? '. c - ,
Re,: Question (i)iJ~ , 1Jr-. ;v Ji".1 ,r'• ! ~ 0 r.J _·~1 ·0· -.a,:: . 1• · ~«~l>ii'1rr•9
": 7.'ln,State otKera/tt. vs.1.1N:rM. •Thomas L1197f:3'.(6)1SCC'31Of6
a seven~Judge Bench of this c·ourtCJefih~d'th'e'con'cepfof" 1 B3
'seniority:-_cum;merit! .~This 0ourtheld thaMseniohty-cum=nierit"
mean? .that given .the minimurn:rnecessarymierit requisite::..for
1
efficierfoy of,administrationv:thersenioDithough ··th·eEless
merjtoriows shalLhave pridrity~:'.ln Union of. lndia·vs. Lt. Gen. 1
Rajeodra. SinghzKadyanJ-::r-129001(6)"-SCC· 69.8,-1 this:;C6urt C --.
observed that '!seryiority,..cum-mierit" p·ostulateS"the.requirement ·-
of c~rtain minimum merit ori:sattsfying a behthmark previously
fixeg,:9ncj.su_bjeqt-to fulfilling the said.requirement, the promotion
is bJ:!S§d:on _seniority.~lt .was pointed ;outithat requirement•of
ass~s_sm~e.nt of comparative merit was .absent::in ·the· case1of
'sery_iority~cum:-merit'.: -·' .. -_,:,.., · '[:_.1i,1:::i:~~ -:c; ,,u1:. ~ "" -r.:, DC
18:dt is:also well ~settled'that~the '.principle of serffority-cLlm-
merit,.sfor, pr6motion,iis differennro·rn the prfr1ciple '5Vseni6rity'
and ·principfe·.of 'rrl'erit-cum-seniority'. Wherepfomoti6hiis~owthe
basi_s ;Ofds~niprity~alone,-3meritwill ~not, play Iany. partiat 811.:But
where; pr,or:notiop is :on Jher pdnciple::of ~eniority~cam;;merit, ·c::E ~
prorrioJion.:isJnot.automatic·with3reference•to seniority,·alona:se''
Merit: wilL aJs0,playi.a ~signifjcant ;role:iiThe-standard1m-eth6d r-c)f;:;n~
seni9rity,~um-merit is.to subjec_taU the·eligible·carididates:in thec0
- feeder. gr.a de· _(possessing ,the. ;pres'crtbe~~ educatiohalK)'.'
qualifi<~au.o.n and. ~eriod·of s~rvice)cto:~'pro~.ess~ot~ass'essment1'_· :F =i
of a spe.cif1e_d minimum necessary;ment· andJhen:promote'.the ·11.1;
canqJdate$ ,who a,.re found to posses·s the:minimum'necessary.J1s
mer~t'. ,strictly in the,:order of, seniority!nThe ~minim Lim merits. '2
necessary fqr the pofot may. be as·sessed either by.subjecting the :<:.i
candi,P;::ites:-to a written examinatibn:.or:an.interview~or: by1.:..1
asse_ssment_of,their:wprk performance during:the'prevjous(years;:, G ;;
or by-a combination,of1eithertwo or all the three of tlie aforesaleP:,..,
metl}ocjs. There is·nohar9 and.fast rule•astto;h-owthe'minimum:->as
-merit-is to be,ascertainedsSo long1as1the; ultimate3ptdmotioris101.!i
are based on seniority, any process ,forl{ascertainingitheo:4
minimum necessary merit, as a basic require.1!.1_eny1w!fu".!.Qt _~H H
942 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
_,,
A militate against the principle of seniority-cum-merit.
9. lh Sivaiah (supra), a three-Judge bench of this Court held
that while the principle of seniority-cum-merit laid greater
emphasis on seniority, the principle of merit-cum-seniority laid
greater emphasis on merit and ability, with seniority playing a
B less significant role. This Court held :
"We thus arrive at the conclusion that the criteria of "seniority-
cum-merit" in the matter of promotion postulates that given
the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of ~
,..
administration, the senior, even though less meritorious, ·
shall have priority and a comparative ass~ssment of merit
c is not required to be made. For assessing the minimum
necessary merit, the competent authority can lay down the.
minimum standard that is required and also prescribe the
· mode of assessment of merit of the employee who is
eligible for consideration for promotion. Such assessment
D can be made by assigning marks on the basis of appraisal
A ..
of performance on the basis of service record and interview
and prescribing the minimum marks which would entitle a
person to be promoted on the basis of seniority-cum-merit."
10. Thus it is clear that a process whereby eligible
E candidates possessing the minimum necessary merit in the
feeder posts is first ascertained and thereafter, 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 ~
F where after 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 n~cessary merit is
bona fide and not unreasonable, it is not open to challenge, as
G 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.
H Re : Question (ii)
RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA v. SAMYUT 943
KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK [RV RAVEENDRAN, J.]
--~
11. The next question is whether fixing of 78% as minimum A
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 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
B
4.12.1996. Thereafter. the promotion process was held by
earmarking 60 marks for assessment of performance Reports
(at the 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 c
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, subject to the relevant Rules;
, For example, for promotions at lower levels, it may fix a lesser D
" ,..
I minimum qualifying marks and fix a comparatively higher
"""' minimum qualifying marks for higher posts. In the first respondent
Bank, the post of officer-Grade II (Area Managers and Senior
Managers) is a very senior position, next only to the top post of
General Manager. As the officers promoted to Scale II were
required to head larger branches or departments in the Head E
Office, shouldering higher responsibilities and virtually
competing with commercial banks, it cannot be said that the
fixing the minimum qualifying marks at 78% is excessive,
.......
unreasonable or arbitrary. We may refer to the following
,}
observations of this Court in K. Samantaray vs. National F
Insurance Col. Ltd. -AIR 2003 SCC 4422, in this context: .
"It is for the employer to stipulate the criteria for promotion,
the same pertaining really to the area of policy-making. It
... was, therefore, permissible for the respondent to have their
own criteria for adjudging claims on the principle of seniority-
G
cum-merit giving primacy to merit as well, depending upon
~
the class, category and nature of posts in the hierarchy of
J( administration and the requirements of efficiency for such
posts."
12. Another aspect requires to be noticed. Where the
H
944;~ SU~R~ME. COURT' REPORTS f2009] I 15 (ADDL.) S.C. R
~ ~ :" • t .. '. ' ' ' .
A as:~~:~~!11~~C~~-rT1i~i~fum ~~~it ·i~ _wlth _ref~r~nse ,to-.pr~viou~
performance
• . "" , • 1 ,' { •:\ I~
record (Annual Conf1dent1al Records) and/or by.
, ':: 4 -~. o.. ·-: . . , • ) i. , . ', -:;"", • • ,_,...; '·
m~~rv.1~w, as Eontrasted from a written exa~r11nat1ori, prescription .r
of'78o/ia$-·rrnfiimum· ·~will not be considered cis unreasonably ...
h.1f'fi'll'i10 as a1S9\'. !;~IP; ~1·1t-.::._:~.,.,ll ~'m lv, di·."·1'-'1 ~'""''"'" .vi ·)q
1
~o·b~rfa!!lduf! efiW ! a!s:'JC: r·i 21<.:•)ilto lo J.o:il VbJ1.io;:; s;lT i e's ·~
s8 vtl. L~.:,r~na§!Y~f!~(~~f?faL1~~i.~1YP1u_g.-~9e1~1tl:!C!t,P,.r:~scr~-~tn~<:~· :
m~Ql!:Jl,JJ.JP, ~;:;9,q,rm~rK~(.?Y! 9.ti~t9R;!%z1!1!e!"Y!e~ ~~~ ,_n9t;y1q!~J1.vei:;·-:i
of1c.the,pnnc1ple,Qf'fsen . 10PtYt.This C,ourt.held :~.r ,.,.., n,,
~-·~J:Vtlt.: 'Vt--t. ~;'1 1l.J1,l"t~}, 't..lff~J· \_1~·1....,,t '.ii~._, ••• .•
lr '"ts, r., 11 i1.01
tJ,.. ·~ ~.!'
11·
c-' I ... ,,
c;;.11fP.UQfl9<ttti.~"'-cqurn~;9f.hepr.ing~pf1,the:appeal~JtheTleamedt,·1 1
isri~quq~~bf()f)!h~:u~spQnd.e,r:it'."eank has;_pl~Ged·:before uslne •c
C. s t,e,l~~~ot-.dg~~rn~l'!t~roela!ir:ig. ~Qjthe irnpugne.d-selectiontand rlc
sri!PWHl9tiPQt91JJ!:l twr:.us~l~f:tne.-sciia1d,G¢urn(illJt.S;\ we1find thahm
stRPJ~~!~~ gy_t Qf,t!le)ot_al~of.1:100,rna*s;we(e pr:e$crjbed1a~)er
.!::!~~ mir)!~µm qµ_<:ll!fy~i,rig m~.r~~: fQf:intervieyv:antho{lly.1ho.sen r
.c:i;.W.~9jh99;;..<?!?t~.in~e:1Jt!leJ·~y~lify:in9cr'larksdn(!nterview1wete·~ot
,.. 1st~aj~gtg~\~9fr:P.fOcITT:9JlPf1~0flJt~e b,a$i$JOfcs~niorityqltiwas,c ~
D'" i 6 :tb~f~f9(~G"~.>lr:~'.~~ ~h,e:r~ra. rnjninH.Jl}lH~tandardHwas·· ,..
tnfl>l~§~!i!>~~1fqr,!3~S~$si9g it.h~Jf!:le.t:i~<.of tfl~t,GaQtlida;tes.anthir,.
ioi~h~OJ>~wb0Jylll~egt};le;:$.,~Jq,rni!iliff:lt:11t1·stam,dardi..w.ere~~electedl~~J
i o fQ5W9IDQ.tjqOJ9Q 1t~~;;>,~si~rof, s~l(!j9.ri.tyd n,th~ '.circ.um~ta nc;es; Giv1
~,Jt.~cCil.n~Q.t::;~et~ai<t.Jb~kth.~ ts~lecti9n)has . notib~emniadejn ,z1
E :,j t •.._,~~~Qrga,qc~iY~ith5the;:Pr;inciple. of;\'seniori!Y::cum::rnerit3s1u1p31
, . Whethentbe~gUiJtleJines/r.,ules adtiptedtfonassessh1g. tl'ieH o
minimunil!ieGessary'"·merit by, pr'.eMtifJing·:marks:urlaer sevetaf10,1
heads .or~by~presotilling;a specific l'.Tliriimum imarktisrreasotfable ix:'
or .§t rbjtril ty ~ w0:w Id ttependt1:1 pCi>mthe fattst of:eacn ca--s~C' lfc1t; isi nLo
-=i demo.m.str\ate:d'.ltt.tat\tthe-ominim.iltmm:ar:ks'~we:ret fixed1with\the~;do
F intenti0:o~ofJta~io.wrinQ:~'o'rrieoner~5tJ:fo;'specifica11y::excluaez"\
sorn@9!J~i~~~ 99.4.CT~:ffi~YE!nte!{~rer~$i.tnitarly.;;W~ere the. mihiliTliffi
ma~~:~.~~2~ho,:Wfll1Q ~9V~e.:b..~~r:rfi~ed._to,de(~atonnull!fy:the:mode
of S,§!1!0J~Y:-~Yrotcrter:itJ,g£rPIO:i;notion:;i!th~re1m~y3be 1 aiGauseJo~
r;inte[f~r~i;i9~1d!i1..iPJ.b~J1~a§~$1(ther~:isJv$1yl.ittl~1scope:to'interfere
G uwith:J:~~ ~-~-OQE?@~t~ ~~~<:?r:>t~91t0Jasce'1?in;the, l!liOif;lJ_um~required
m~(!ti(rlo1s1sid erH m BJ2oq to s1utsn bns \'.lOgsis:; .zasb srll
n::>tit ·101f?f_ba.gwt.rtmras ~wwarh(supta~ .~tli is:Court>teite·r.gt~ct tthe
principle laid down in Sivaiah (supra) and State of UP vs;!dalal
Ud§Jin ~GQC!5J\i1 )!§>_G,QoH>!ilHh~t QrJr:i~ipl~s of~$~1;1ior.ity+t.um.merit
H Hand. merit-cum-seniority are conceptually different and that in
RAJENDRA KUMAR.SRIVASTAVA v. SAMYUT 945
KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
seniority-cum-merit greater emphasis is on seniority though it A
may not be the only determinative factor. It then held on the facts
of that case, that the method adopted therein· fixing 75% as
minimum marks; violated the principle of seniority-cum-merit.
Reliance is placed by the appellants on the following observations
of this Court: ·
B
"The contention that minimum marks wereA5-out of 60,
means that an employee is to secure 75% of marks. Such
a high percentage cannot be a measure for prescribing
minimum marks to assess merit. It obviously would be a
case of shifting the focus to merit-cum-seniority principle. It
obviously would be a case of shifting the focus to merit-cum- C
seniority principle. In para 37 of Siva,iah case,'thls Court
noted that minimum marks prescribed for assessing merit
do not depart from the seniority-cum-merit principle~ But the
factual position is different here. There 'is ,no mention that
45 marks out of 60 relate to the prescription of minimum o
marks for assessing the merit."·-·
The appellants contend that the Rules considered in
Bhagwandas Tiwari and in this case are the same and therefore,
the effect of the decision in Bhagwandas Tiwari is that wherever
minimum qualifying marks is fixed as 75% or more, the seniority- E
cum-merit rule would be violated. -
15. We have carefully examined the decision in
Bhagwandas Tiwari. Even if the Rules applicable and mode of
selection prescribed ("interview and assessment of
performance for the preceding three years period as officers for
promotion") are the same in both cases, the criteria and F
standards adopted for assessing the minimum necessary merit
are completely different. we· extract below the standards
adopted for promotion in this case and in Bhagwandas Tiwari :
"Standards adopted in this case
Marks allotted G
(i) Work performance during the previous years 60
(ii) Interview 40
Total 100
========= H
946 SUPREME· COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A The minimum marks for eligibility for promotion : 78%.
Standards adopted in the case of Bhagwandas :
(a) Work performance during the previous 3 years 30
(b) Period of service (at the rate of 2 marks
per year For competed period of 40
B service subject to a Maximum of 40)
(c) Interview 30
Total 100
--------
--------
c In order be selected for promotion, obtaining 45 marks shall
be compulsory"
It would thus be seen that the schemes for assessing
minimum necessary marks are completely different in the two
cases. While work performance carried only 30 marks in
D Bhagwandas's case, it carried 60 marks in this case. While
perio.Q. of service carried 40 marks in Bhagwandas's case, no
marks are provided for 'period of service' in this ca~e. While the
marks for intervie"V were 30 in Bhagwandas's case, it is 40 in
this case. The minimum qualifying marks was 78 out of 100 in
E this case. In Bhagwandas, the minimum qualifying marks
prescribed was 45 marks out of 100. But ignoring the
requirement of 45 out of 100, the selection Committee adopted
a minimum of 45 out of 60 (that is aggregate of marks for work
performance and Interview only) ignoring the marks of 40 for
period of service though that was the highest segment. This
F Court was persuaded to interfere in that case, as the guidelines
which prescribed the minimum qualifying marks as 45 out of 100
was ignored and the committee changed the minimum qualifying
marks to 45 out of 60, thereby ignoring the marks secured for
the period of service. Thus, the decision in Bhagwandas Tiwari
G will not assist the appellants.
14. We therefore find no merit in this appeal and it is
.! accordingly dismissed .
R.P. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "seniority‑cum‑merit"Sign in to search