HARIGOVIND YADAV versus REWA SIDHI GRAMIN BANK & ORS.

HARIGOVIND YADAV versus REWA SIDHI GRAMIN BANK & ORS.

A promotion policy that bases selection on comparative marks, giving secondary importance to seniority and not prescribing minimum standard for promotion but only for interview, is contrary to the statutory requirement of 'seniority-cum-merit'. Appellant’s entitlement was improperly determined by comparative merit rather than seniority coupled with minimum merit. Consequently, the procedure adopted was invalid.

Parties
Appellant: Harigovind Yadav; First Respondent: Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank; Third Respondent: Third Respondent (name not specified)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Promotion Policy, Seniority Cum Merit, Interview, Weightage, Promotion of Juniors
Service Law Promotion Policy Seniority Cum Merit Interview Weightage Promotion of Juniors

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harigovind Yadav

Appellant

Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank

First Respondent

Third Respondent (name not specified)

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the promotion policy adopted by Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank for appointment of Field Supervisors was in consonance with the statutory requirement of 'seniority-cum-merit' as prescribed by the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment & Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1988.
  2. 2 Whether denial of promotion to the appellant, based on failure to secure minimum interview marks under the Bank's policy, was lawful.

Ratio Decidendi

A promotion policy that bases selection on comparative marks, giving secondary importance to seniority and not prescribing minimum standard for promotion but only for interview, is contrary to the statutory requirement of 'seniority-cum-merit'. Appellant’s entitlement was improperly determined by comparative merit rather than seniority coupled with minimum merit. Consequently, the procedure adopted was invalid.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • First respondent bank directed to promote appellant as Field Supervisor from the date third respondent was promoted and place him above the third respondent.
  • Appellant entitled to monetary benefits flowing from promotion only prospectively, though pay is to be refixed with reference to retrospective date of promotion.