Holding

The promotion was invalid as the Bank did not follow the seniority‑cum‑merit criterion and failed to produce records; a fresh selection must be held, and the interim service period does not count towards seniority.

Summary

The Himachal Gramin Bank promoted fifteen clerks to the post of Field Supervisor in 1987, allegedly using a merit‑cum‑seniority criterion instead of the prescribed seniority‑cum‑merit rule. Respondents challenged the promotion, and the Himachal Pradesh High Court set aside the selection, directing a fresh promotion process. The Bank failed to produce the original Departmental Promotion Committee records despite multiple court directions, leading the High Court to deem the entire selection vitiated. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgment, ordering the Bank to conduct a fresh selection within five months following the seniority‑cum‑merit criterion and holding that the eleven years the appellants served under interim orders will not count towards their seniority. The appeal was dismissed without costs.

Issues considered

Whether the Bank’s use of merit‑cum‑seniority instead of seniority‑cum‑merit for promotion violates the applicable selection criteria.
Whether the Bank’s failure to produce the original Departmental Promotion Committee records vitiates the promotion.
Whether the period of service as Field Supervisor under interim orders should be counted towards seniority.
Whether a fresh selection must be ordered and the timeframe for it.

Subjects

promotionsenioritymeritselection criteriadepartmental promotion committeeservice lawfresh selectionpublic body transparency

Judgment

SHER SINGH AND ORS. A
v.
SURINDER KUMAR AND ORS.

JANUARY 21, 1998

[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B
.-
. "
Service Law :

Promotion-Field Supervisors-Selection from amongst Clerks-
Appellants promoted on the basis of merit-cum-seniority-On challenge, High C
Court held that the entire selection was vitiated for not following the criterion
of seniority-cum-merit-On appeal, Held, no error in the judgement of the
'High Court '-Fresh selection to be held-The criterion of seniority-cum-
merit to be followed-The period for which appeilants worked as Field
Supervisors not to be counted for seniority. D
The appellants and respondents 1 to 7 were the employees of the
Himachal Gramin Bank. 30 posts of Field Supervisors were available with
the Bank, of which 15 wen: to be filled up by promotion from amongst the
clerks and 15 by direct recruitment. The appellants and some others were
selected and promoted to the post of Field Supervisors. The selection was E
challenged on the ground that the criteria for making promotion was ~eniority
cum-1J1erit but the Bank adopted the criteria of merit-cum-seniority. Th~ writ
petition was allowed by the Single Judge and upheld be the Division Bench.
The selected candidates filed special leave petition in this Court. This Court
granted leave to appeal in respect of appellants 10 to 15 and refused leave F
to appellants 1 to 9.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD: 1. Since the ~ank had adopted the criterion of"Merit-cum-
seniority" and "not seniority-cnm•merit" in making selection and did not G
produce the original records despite several directions and opportunities,
the High Court was right in holding that the entire selection was vitiated.
There is no infirmity in the judgements passed by the High Court and the
same are upheld. (297-G)

2. The Bank shall hold a fresh selection in accordance with the H
295
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-- ... ~~

'
J

296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) 1 S.C.R.

A directions issued by the High Court within 5 months from the date of
judgment. In view of the present litigation, the Bank has not made any
promotion to the post of Field Supervisor so far. The Bank cannot, by this ,.J...
attitude, stagnate its employees. 1298-DI

3. The appellants, who were promoted in 1987 and were amongst the
B 15 persons originally selected have been working on these posts under the
interim orders of this Court but since the appeal is being dismissed, the
period of 11 years for which they were working on the posts of Field
Supervisor shall not be counted towards their seniority and ifthe respondents
along with appellants or any of them are selected and promoted to the post
C of Field Supervisor in the fresh selection, they will retain their original
seniority. 1298-E-FJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7425 of 1994.

From the Judgment and Order dated 14.1.94 of the Himachal Pradesh
D High Court in LP.A. No. I of 1991.

M.R. Sharma, U.ijwal Banerjee and H.K. Puri for the Appellants.
.
•
Raju Ramachandran and Sanjay Karol for Ms. Meenakshi Arora for the
Respondents.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delilvered by

S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J. The appellants and respondents I to 7 are the
employees of the Himachal Gramin Bank (for short, 'the Bank'). In May-June,
1986, 30 posts of Field Supervisors, 15 of which were to be filled up by
F promotion from amongst the Clerks and 15 by direct recruitment, became
available. In February 1987, a selection was held, in which 15 persons including
the present appellants were selected and promoted to the posts of Field .
Supervisors. This selection was challenged by respondents I to 7 by a Writ
Petition in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, which was allowed by the
G Single Judge on 10th December, 1990. This decision was upheld by the
Division Bench on 14th January, 1994. All persons including the present
appellants filed S.L.P. No. 15559/1994 in this Court and the Court by its Order
dated 10th November, 1994 granted leave only to appellants IO to 15, while
leave was,refused to appellants No. 1 to 9.

H 2. We have heard learned counsel of the parties, except the counsel for
SHER SINGH .v. SURINDER KUMAR [S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J.] 297

the Bank, who did not appear. A
3. It is not disputed that the criterion for making promotion from the
post of Clerk to that of Field Supervisor was seniority-cum-merit. On a
consideration of the facts placed before the High Court, the Single Judge as
also the Division Bench came to the conclusion that, while making selection,
the Bank did not follow this criterion and instead, it made promotion on the B
basis of merit-cum-seniority which vitiated the selection.

4. It may be pointed out that; before the learned Single Judge as also
before the Division Bench, the Bank, in spite of directions of the Court, did
not produce the original records relating to the selection in question. The C
learned Single Judge in its judgment has, in this regard, observed as under:-

"Before concluding the present case I must place on record that
despite specific direction dated 11.10.1990 to the H.P. Gramin Bank,
the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee were not
placed before this Court. The learned counsel for the Bank, Sh. M.L. D
Sharma took time twice on 19.10.1990 and 26.10.1990, to comply with
the directions of the Court but failed. Ultimately, on 1.11.1990, he
showed his inability to show to this Court the proceedings of the
Departmental Promotion Committee, as the General Manager of the
H.P. Gram in Bank did not hand over the same to him despite assurances.
In these circumstances, I am constrained to conclude that the E
respondent-bank has failed to show to this Court that it has followed
a fair and just method of selection for promo~ion to the post of Field
Supervisor. Such a non-cooperating attitude of a public body which
is expected to be a model employer, militates against the fair adjudication
of the issues raised before the Court. It is advisable a litigant party F
and more so, if the litigant party is the Government or a Public Body,
to avoid any secrecy and put its record beyond the slightest pale of
controversy to enable the Court to decide the points in issue."

5. Since the Bank had adopted the criteria of "merit-cum-senioiity"
and not "seniority-cum-merit" in making selection in question and did not G
prnduce the original records despite several directions and opportunities, the
High Court was right in holding that the entire selection was vitiated. There
is not infirmity in the judgments passed by the High Court and the same are
upheld.

6. The operative part of the judgment passed by the learned Single H
298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1998) \ S.C.R.

A Judge is quoted below:-
" In the result, the petitioners succeed on the first point that the
profrlotion of respondent Nos. 2 and 16 to the posts ofField Supervisors
is bad for the reason that the H.P. Gramin Bank arbitrarily followed the
criterion of selection 'merit-cum-seniority' instead of 'seniority-cumc
B merit' applicable to the post . As the petitioners succeed on the first
point, I need not decide the second point raised by them that the
promotions were bad because the constitution of the Departmental
Promotion Committee was defective due to the participation of the
unauthorised person. Therefore, the promotion of respondent Nos. 2
to 16 to the posts of Field Supervisor made on 26.6.1987 in pursuance
c to t_he selection made by the Departmental Promotion Committee on
6.2.1987 is set aside. The Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank is directed
to make fresh promotion to the posts of Field Supervisor in accordance
with law".

D 7. We are informed that, in view of the present litigatior., the Bank has
not made any promotion to the post of Field Supervisors so far. The Bank
cannot, by this attitude, stagnate its employees. We, therefore, direct while
.
dismissing the appeal that the Bank shall hold a fresh selection in accordance
with the directions issued by the High Court within 5 months from today.

E 8. The appellants, who were promoted in 1987 and were amongst the
I 5 persons originally selected have been working on these posts under the
interim ord~rs of this court but since the appeal is being dismissed, the period
of 11 years for which they were working on the posts of Field Supervisors
shall not be cou;ited towards their seniority and if the respondents along with
appellants or any of them are selected and promoted to the post of Field
F Supervisor in the fresh selection, they will retain their original seniority.

9. The appeal is disposed of in the manner indicated above without
any order as to costs.

S.V.K. Appeal disposed of.