Holding

The promotions were illegal as they were effected on merit‑cum‑seniority rather than seniority‑cum‑merit, and the period of service rendered under such illegal promotions cannot be counted for seniority.

Summary

The appellants, employees of Jharkhand Gramin Bank, were promoted to Field Supervisors on 20 November 1990 under the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotions of Officers and Other Employees) Rules, 1988. The bank used a merit‑cum‑seniority system, assigning marks for seniority, education, performance and interview, and promoted the highest‑scoring candidates, contrary to the Rules which require promotion on a seniority‑cum‑merit basis where merit is only a minimum threshold. A writ petition filed by a third respondent challenged the promotions; the High Court set them aside and ordered a fresh promotion process adhering to seniority‑cum‑merit. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court, holding that the promotions were illegal, that service rendered under an illegal promotion cannot be counted for seniority, and that the delay in the writ petition does not create any equity in favour of the appellants. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

The promotions complied with the seniority‑cum‑merit principle under the 1988 Rules?
Whether a promotion made on merit‑cum‑seniority is illegal?
Whether service rendered under an illegal promotion can be counted for seniority and future promotions?
Whether the lapse of time between the promotion and the writ petition creates any equitable considerations for the appellants?

Subjects

promotionseniority‑cum‑meritmerit‑cum‑seniorityservice lawillegal promotionregional rural banksadministrative lawwrit petitionequityseniority

Judgment

[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1133

RUPA RANI RAKSHIT AND ORS. A
·~
v.
JHARKHAND GRAMIN BANK AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1786 of 2002)
NOVEMBER 24, 2009
B
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.]

Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and promotions of
officers and other employees) Rules, 1988: The Rules
Jo
provide for promotion based on seniority-cum-merit -
Respondent-Bank governed by the Rules - Promotion of G
employees of bank on comparative assessment of merit with
reference to marks for academic qualifications, years of
service, performance appraisal and interview - Legality of -
Held: Not legal - High Court rightly interfered with the
promotions - Directions given by High Court for fresh process D
y
of promotion was in consonance with Rules and principles of
"' seniority-cum-merit - Service law.
Service law: Promotion - Without following the rules -
Held: Period of service rendered in pursuance of such illegal
. promotion which was subsequently set aside cannot be E
counted for the purpose of seniority.
Equity: Writ petition challenging promotion of appellants
- No delay in filing writ petition - Fact that writ petition was
pending for considerable time would not create any equities
in favour of appellants. F
The Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and
promotions of officers and other employees) Rules, 1988
=I provided for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-
merit. The respondent-bank governed by the Rules drew
G
--i. up a common seniority list of all the eligible candidates
from the feeder cadres and subjected them to comparative
assessment based on marks secured with reference to
~
certain parameters adopted by the Bank. A list of the
candidates who secured the minimum qualifying marks in
1133 H
1134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A the interview was prepared in the order of merit with
reference .to the marks secured by them on such )-<_"'

assessment: 31 candidates were promoted from the said
list of clerical cadre to the post of Field Supervisors in the
order of merit by notification dated 20.11.1990.
B The third respondent filed a writ petition before the
High Court, contending that in making the promoticms, the
Bank had ignored the principle of seniority-cum-merit
prescribed under the Rules and had followed the principle
of merit-cum-seniority. .I..
c High Court allowed the writ petition holding that the
promotions were effected without following the principle
of ser:-i.ority-cum-r:nerit and it directed fre,sh process of
promotions by adopting· principle of seniority-cum-merit.
Hence these appeals.
D Dismissing the appeals, the Court
y~:
HELD: 1. The respondent-bank did not subject the
eligible candidates to any process of assessment to
ascertain any specified minimum merit, for the purpose of
promoting the candidates who possessed the minimum
E
merit, on the basis of seniority. On the other hand, the Bank
proceeded to assess their inter-se-merit with reference to
four criteria (period of service, educational qualification,
performance during three years, and interview) by \
allocating respectively maximum marks of 40, 6, 24 and 30
F (out of a total 100 marks) and then proceeded to promote
those who had 'secured the highest marks in the order of
merit. Thus there were two violations of the relevant rules: ~
I

(i) promoting candidates on merit-cum-seniority and not
on seniority-cum-merit; and (ii) assessing inter-se merit,
G inter alia with reference to marks allocated to different
educational qualifications. It cannot, therefore, be said that
the promotions made on 20.11.1990 were on the basis of ~
seniority-cum-merit. Though the period of service was also
considered as one of the factors for assessment of
H comparative merit, the procedure adopted for promotion
RUPA RANI RAKSHIT AND ORS. v. JHARKHAND 1135
GRAMIN BANK AND ORS.
was merit-cum-seniority. The High Court was, therefore, A
justified in interfering with the promotions. The directions
given by the High Court for fresh process of promotion
were in consonance with the Rules and principles of
seniority-cum-merit. [Para 7] (1141-8-F]
Rajendra Kumar Srivastava & Ors. v. Samyut Kshetriya B
Gramin Bank & Ors. 2009 (14) SCALE 67, relied on.
Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs. D.P. Singh 2000 (1)
PLJR 25, referred to.
.J.
2. Though the promotions of appellants were in
November, 1990, it was challenged before the High Court
c
by the third respondent by filing a writ petition, without any
~elay, that is, in less than three months. The fact that the
writ petition was pending for a considerable time would
not therefore create any equities in favour of the appellants.
D
[Para 8] (1141-G-H; 1142-A]
y
~ 3. It is now well-settled that if an appointment or
promotion is made without considering the claims of all
the available eligible candidates and/or without following
the relevant rules, the service rendered in pursuance of
E
such illegal appointment or promotion cannot be equated
to service rendered in pursuance of an appointment or
promotion validly and lawfully made. Whenever a person
is promoted to a post without following the rules
,.
r' prescribed for such promotion, he should be treated as a
person not regularly promoted to that post. Consequently, F
where promotions are governed by Rules, in computing
the length of service, in the post to which an employee is
promoted, it is not permissible to include the period of
service rendered in pursuance of an illegal promotion
which is subsequently set aside. It, therefore, follows that G
the period of service rendered by the appellants from 1990
'.l(- to 2001 cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority in
the cadre of Officers/Field Superiors. [Para 1O] [1142-0-G]

H
1136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A Case Law Reference:
2000 (1) PLJR 251 referred to Para 4
2009 (14) SCALE 67 relied on P;ua 6
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1786
B of2002.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.4.2001 of the High
Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in LP.A. No. 77of2002.
WITH
CA Nos.1787"1788 & 1789 of 2002
c Anoop G. Choudhary, P.N. Mishra, Manoj Saxena, Bachita
Baruah, Anil Kumar Jha, Manoranjan Jha, Alka Jha, Gopal
Prasad, Lalit Bhasin, Nin Gupta, Akshat Goel, lshita Sehgal Bina
Gupta forthe appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. The appellants in these appeals
are the employees of the first respondent-Bank - Ranchi
Kshetriya Gramin Bank- now known as Jharkhand Gramin Bank.
The appellants were working as clerks-cum-cashiers or
equivalent posts in different branches of the first respondent-
E Bank. The Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion
of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1988 (for short 'the
Rules') made by the Central Government in exercise of powers
conferred under the Provincial Rural Banks Act, 1976 governed
the appointment and promotion of employees of the Bank. Rule
F 5 provided that all vacancies shall be filled in accordance with
the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Rules. Entry (5) of
Second Schedule to the Rules related to filling of posts of Field
Supervisors (subsequently merged with the post of officers).
Clause (a) thereof provided that 50% of the posts shall be filled
by promotion from amongst the confirmed senior and junior
G cler:~s-cum-cashiers or clerks-cum-typists or stenographers or
steno-typists on the basis of seniority-cum-merit (the remaining
50% to be filled by direct recruitment which is not relevant for
these appeals). Clause (b) of Entry (5) prescribed the
educational qualifications -and the eligibility (minimum number
H of years of service in the feeder post) for promotion. Clause (e)
RUPA RANI RAKSHIT AND ORS. v. JHARKHAND 1137
GRAMIN BANK AND ORS. [RV RAVEENDRAN, J.]
of Entry (5) prescribed the mode of selection for promotion as A
~
"interviews and assessment of performance reports for
preceding three years period".
2. The first respondent Bank drew up a common seniority
list of all the eligible candidates (candidates possessing the
prescribed educational qualifications who have put in the B
prescribed period of service) from the feeder grades. Then the
eligible candidates were subjected to a comparative
_, assessment based on marks secured with reference to four
). parameters adopted by the Board of Directors of the first
respondent-Bank at its 58th Meeting, on the basis of the norms
prescribed by the National Bank for Agricultural and Rural
c
Development (for short 'NABARD'). The four parameters and
maximum marks allocated to each of them were as under:
SI.No. Particulars Maximum Marks
(i) Seniority 40 D
(one mark for each completed
.
.~
y
quarter of service)
(ii) Educational Qualifications : 6
[for possessing graduate degree
: 3 marks; post-graduate degree :
2 marks and poctorate : 1 mark]
E
(iii) Performance-appraisal : 24
[for Very Good (A) - 8 marks; for
< 4i Good (B) - 6 marks; for Average
• (C) - 5 marks; and for Poor (D) -
0 marks]
(iv) Interview: 30
[Minimum qualifying marks for
interview: 10 marks]
TOTAL 100
G
A list of the candidates who secured the minimum qualifying
marks in the interview was prepared in the order of merit with
""' ·reference to the marks secured by them on such assessment.
Therefore, 31 candidates were promoted from among the said
list of clerical cadre to the post of Field Supervisors in the order
of merit, vide notification dated 20.11.1990 . H
....
1138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 3. Feeling aggrieved, the third respondent herein filed a writ
petition before the High Court, contending that in making the ~·

promotions, the Bank had ignored the principle of seniority-cum-
merit prescribed under the Rules and had followed the principle
of merit-cum-seniority. It was also contended that contrary to the
B provisions of the Rules which required that the mode of selection
would be only by interviews and assessment of performance
reports for preceding three years, the Bank had adopted the
method of assessment with reference to four parameters, that
is, years of service (seniority), educational qualifications, in "-:
addition to performance appraisal and interview. -4
c 4. By the time the said writ petition came up for
consideration, a Full Bench of the Patna High Court had
rendered its judgment in Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs.
D.P. Singh [2000 (1) PLJR 251], holding that promotion of
persons with reference to merit, that is, promoting those who
D secured highest marks in the list of eligible candidates was
contrary to the principle of seniority-cum-merit. A learned Single
Judge of the High Court, therefore, allowed the writ petition filed
'y'
..
by third respondent, by order dated 10.1 '.2001 and set aside the
promotions. He held that the promotions effected as per the order
E dated 20.11.1990 without following the principle of seniority-cum-
merit, but on a comparative assessment of merit which was
based on marks for academic qualifications, interview etc. were
illegal. Consequently, he directed as follows:
"While considering the cases all the eligible candidates, it ~ ·~

F
shall be open to the respondent to fix marks for assessment
of performance of proceeding three years prior to the date •
such promotion as were considered originally. This clearly
means the three proceeding years from the date of original
consideration which was the subject matter of the writ
application. It shall be open to the Bank to allocate marks
G at the minimum level for the interview/viva voce test in
addition to assessment of performance, to determine the
standard of candidate in the interest of administration. Once
it is done, seniority shall have precedence over everything
else.
H xxxxx
RLJPA RANI RAKSHIT AND ORS. v. JHARKHAND 1139
GRAMIN BANK AND ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
Till order of promotion is issued based on the aforesaid A
directions the respondents No.3 to 7 and the intervener(s)
will continue to hold the post(s) as presently held by them
and not to be disturbed till the final order(s) are passed in
the matter of promotion. If, however, any contesting
respondent(s) or intervener(s) or one or other fail to get
B
promotion they shall be deemed to be reverted to the post
as originally held by them before issuance of the impugned
order of promotion, which has been set aside.
It is also made clear that contesting respondents no.3 to 7
)>
or the interveners if allowed promotion on such
consideration, they will not get benefit in pursuance of earlier
c
notification dated 19th Nov. 1990, which has been set aside
by this Court."
The appeals filed by the appellants (candidates promoted on
20.11.1990) against the said judgment were dismissed by the
Division Bench, holding by a short order that the judgment of the D
,, T learned Single Judge did not call for interference. The said
judgment is challenged in these appea.ls by special leave.
5. The first contention urged by the appellants is that the
promotions made on dated 20.11.1990 were lawful and valid. I(
was submitted that the Bank had effected promotions by giving E
primacy to seniority as it allotted maximum marks of 40 out of
100, for the period of service (at the rate of one mark for every
quarter of service). It was pointed out that marks allotted to other
... parameters were less - 30 marks for interview, 24 marks for

• performance-appraisal in regard to three years service and 6
marks for educational qualifications. It was contended that when
F
primacy was accorded to seniority (period of service) in the
assessment process, the promotion should be treated as on the
principle of seniority-cum-merit.
6. The principle of seniority-cum-merit is well-settled. In
G
Rajendra Kumar Srivastava & Ors. v. Samyut Kshetriya
Gramin Bank & Ors. [C.A. No.6691 of 2001 decided on
·11r 17.11.2009], this Court observed as follows :
"8. \tis also well settled that the principle of seniority-cum-
merit, for promotion, is different from the principle of
H
1140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 'seniority' and principle of 'merit-cum-senrority'. Where J
promotion is on the basis of seniority alone, merit will not
play any part at all. But where promotion is on the principle
of seniority-cum-merit, promotion is not automatic with
reference to seniority alone. Merit will also play a significant
B role. The standard method of seniority-cum-merit is to
subject all the eligible candidates in the feeder grade
(possessing the prescribed educational qualification and
period of service) to a process of assessment of a specified
minimum necessary merit and then promote the candidates ....
who are found to possess the minimum necessary merit
c strictly in the order of seniority. The minimum merit
necessary for the post may be assessed either by subjecting
the candidates to a written examination or an interview or
by assessment of their work performance during the
previous years, or by a combination of either two or all the
D three of the aforesaid methods. There is no hard and fast
rule as to how the minimum merit is to be ascertained. So
long as the ultimate promotions are based on seniority,
any process for ascertaining the minimum necessary
merit, as a basic requirement, will not militate against the
principle of seniority-cum-merit.
E
xxxxx
10. Thus it is clear that a process whereby eligible
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
F
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 assessing the
minimum necessa1y merit, promotions are made on the
G 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 not open to ·•
challenge, as being opposed to the principle of seniority-
H cum-merit. We accordingly hold that prescribing minimum
RUPA RANI RAKSHIT AND ORS. v. JHARKHAND 1141
GRAMIN BANK AND ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
qualifying marks to ascertain the minimum merit necessary A
for discharging the functions of the higher post, is not
violative of the concept of promotion by seniority-cum-
merit."
(emphasis supplied)
7. In this case, the bank did not subject the eligible B
candidates to any process of assessment to ascertain any
specified minimum merit, for the purpose of promoting the
candidates who possessed the minimum merit, on the basis
. ).
seniority. On the other hand, the Bank proceeded to assess their
inter-se-merit with reference to four criteria (period of service, c
educational qualification, performance during three years, and
interview) by allocating respectively maximum marks of 40, 6,
f
24 and 30 (out of a total 100 marks and then proceeded to
promote those who had secured the highest marks in the order
of merit. Thus there were two violations of the relevant rules: (i)
promoting candidates on merit-cum-seniority and not on D
seniority-cum-merit; and (ii) assessing inter-se merit, inter alia
with reference to marks allocated to different educational
qualifications. It cannot, therefore, be said that the promotions
made on 20.11.1990 wer-e on the basis of seniority-cum-merit.
Though the period of service was also considered as one of the E
factors for assessment of comparative merit, the procedure
adopted for promotion was merit-cum-seniority. The High Court
was, therefore, justified in interfering with the promotions. The
directions given by the High Court for fresh process of promotion
were in consonance with the Rules and principles of seniority-
F
cum-merit. The appeals, therefore, have no merit.
8. The appellants submitted that they were promoted in
November 1990, that they had worked in the higher post of Field
Superiors for more than ten years and therefore, even if there
was some procedural irregularity, their promotions ought not to G
have been interfered with, in the year 2001. The submission is
misleading. Though the promotions of appellants were in
November, 1990, it was challenged before the High Court by the
third respondent by filing a writ petition, without any delay, that
is, in less than three months. The fact that the writ petition was
H

,.
1142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A pending for a considerable time will not therefore create any
equities in favour of the appellants.
9. The appellants in C.A. No.1789 of 2002 have an
additional grievance. The three appellants in that appeal were
originally promoted on 20.11.1990. When the High Court set
B aside the said promotions and directed a fresh process of
promotions by adopting the principle of seniority-cum-merit, the
Bank accordingly made fresh prpmotions by orcier dated
24.4.2001 and these three appellants were again promoted with
effect from 9.4.2001. But their seniority in the .post of Field
Supervisor was reckoned from the date of their fresh promotion -l
c i.e. 9.4.2001 and the previous period of service as Field: -
Supervisor from 1990 to 2001 was ignored. They contend that
their service as Field Supervisors between 1990 and 2001
should also be counted for the purpose of their seniority in the
post of Field Supervisors, further promotions and other benefits.
D 10. It is now well-settled that if an appointment or promotion
is made without considering the claims of all the available eligible
candidates and/or without following the relevant rutes; the service
rendered in pursuance of such illegal appointment or promotion
cannot be equated to service rendered in pursuance of an
\:
E appointment or promotion validly and lawfully made. Whenever
a person is promoted to a post without following the rules
prescribed for such promotion, he should be treated as a person
not regularly promoted to that post. Consequently, where
promotions are governed by Rules, in computing the length of
service, in the post to which an employee is promoted, it is not "
F
permissible to include the period of service rendered in
pursuance of an illegal promotion which is subsequently set
aside. It, therefore, follows that the period of service rendered
by the appellants from 1990 to 2001 cannot be cc·-~:-.Led for the
purpose of seniority in the cadre of Offir.ers/Field Superiors.
G Therefore, the appellants in C.A. No.1789/2002 are also not
entitled to any relief.
11. Therefore, all the appeals and the applications for ...
,
impleadment are dismissed.
D.G. Appeals dismissed.
H