PETITIONER:
SHER SINGH & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SURINDER KUMAR & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/01/1998
BENCH:
S. SAGHIR AHMAD, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENTS.SAGHIR AHMAD, J.
The appellants and respondents 1 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 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 1 to 7 by a Writ Petition in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, which was allowed by the 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 10 to 15, while leave was refused to appellants No. 1 to 9. 2. We have heard learned counsel of the parties, except the counsel for the Bank, who did not appear. 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 basis of merit-cumseniority 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 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.
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. Gramin Bank did
not hand over the same to him
despite assurances. In these that
the respondent-bank has failed to
show to this Court that it has
followed a fair and just method of
selection for promotion 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, 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-cumseniority" and not "seniority-cum-merit" in making selection in question and did not produce 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 Judge is quoted below:-
" In the result, the petitioners
succeed on the first point that the
promotion of respondent Nos. 2 and
16 to the posts of Field
Supervisors is bad for the reason
that the H.P. Gramin Bank
arbitrarily followed the criterion
of selection ’merit-cum-seniority’
instead of ’seniority-cum-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 to
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". 7. We are informed that, in view of the present litigation, 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. 8. The appellants, who were promoted in 1987 and were amongst the 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 Supervisors shall not be counted towards their seniority and if the respondents along with appellants or any of them are selected and promoted to the post of Field 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.