Holding

Seniority‑cum‑merit means that, once a minimum standard of merit is satisfied, the senior officer is given priority and no comparative merit assessment is required; promotion processes that prioritize merit over seniority violate this rule.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the meaning of the "seniority‑cum‑merit" criterion prescribed in the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment & Promotion of Officers and Other Employees) Rules, 1988 and applied it to promotions of officers to Area/Senior Manager posts in several banks. It held that seniority‑cum‑merit requires a minimum standard of merit, after which the senior officer is given priority and no comparative merit assessment is needed. Promotions made by selecting the highest‑scoring candidates where merit was given greater weight than seniority were found to violate this principle. The Court also ruled that promotions effected five years earlier could not be challenged because the promoted officers had acquired seniority rights, and that seniority among officers appointed on the same date is determined by placement in the select list. Consequently, most appeals challenging the promotions were dismissed, except one where the promotion complied with the seniority‑cum‑merit rule and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

The proper interpretation of the term 'seniority‑cum‑merit' under the 1988 Rules.
Whether a promotion process that awards higher weightage to merit than to seniority complies with the seniority‑cum‑merit criterion.
Whether promotions made several years earlier can be set aside on the ground of laches.
How inter‑se seniority is to be determined when officers have the same date of appointment and length of service.
Whether the requirement of interview and performance assessment in the Rules implies a comparative assessment of merit.
Whether the High Court judgments setting aside the promotions were legally correct.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226
Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976s. 17, s. 24, s. 29

Subjects

seniority‑cum‑meritpromotionregional rural banksservice lawlachesinter se senioritymerit‑cum‑seniorityadministrative lawselection criteria

Judgment

A B.V. SIVAIAH AND ORS. +
v.
K. ADDANKI BABU AND ORS.

JULY 17, 1998

B [S.C. AGRA WAL, S.P. BHARUCHA AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.]

Service Law : ,..., -
Promotion-Rule prescribing seniority-cum-merit criterion-Authority
c making promotion.on the basis of officers securing highest marks amongst
'
eligible officers-Challenged-Held, seniority-cum-merit implies prescribing
minimum standard for assessing merit and from amongst those fulfilling the
minimum standard making promotion on the basis of inter se seniority-
Comparative assessment of merit not required-Requirement of interview and
assessment of service in Rule cannot be construed as permitting comparative
D assessment-Principle laid down applied to promotions in different Regional
Rural Banks-Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotio11s ofOfficers
.....
and other Employees) Rules, 1988-Second Schedule, Para 7.

Promotion-Employees appointed on same date and having same length
of service-Inter se seniority-Determination of-Held, it is determined on
E
the basis ofplacement in the Select List for appointment-Such determination
· conje·rs ·cer:!_ai!I rights-Seniority-cum-merit criterion gives effect to such
rights flowing from seniority-select list.

Promotion-Seniority-cum-merit and merit-cum-seniority-Comparison
F of-Held, seniority-cum-merit lays greater emphasis on seniority and
'>- ,
comparative assessment of merit not required, whereas merit-cum-seniority
lays greater emphasis on merit and ability and comparative assessment of
merit required.

Delay!Laches-Promotion challenged after five years-Persons
G promoted acquiring certain rights-Held, persons cannot be deprived of
such rights-Petition rightly rejected-Constitution of India-Article 226.

Words & Phrases- 'Seniority-cum-merit' & 'Merit-cum-seniority'-

H
Meaning of in Service Law.

Appellants are the Regional Rural Banks in the States of Andhra
c
782
B.V. SIVAIAH v. K. ADDANKI BABU 783

- Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh and Officers promoted by these banks to the A
post of Area/Senior Manager. "Seniority-cum-merit" was the criterion
prescribed for promotion to the post of Area/Senior Manager under the
Regional Rural Banks (Appointment & Promotion of Officers and Other
employees) Rules, 1988. The various Regional Rural Banks laid down the
promotion process according to which selection was to be made on the basis B
of marks awarded for seniority, qualification, performance, interview, etc.
Generally selections were made on the basis of total number of marks
obtained and officers who secured highest number of marks were promoted.

The unsuccessful persons challenged the promotions in various writ
petitions in the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. In the C
case ofRayalseema Grameena Bank, promotions made on may 3, 1988 were
only challenged in 1993 alongwith subsequent promotions to the said post.
Single Judge allowed the writ petitions and declared the promotions illegal
and improper. Writ petition challenging the promotions made on May 3,
1988 was, however, dismissed on the ground of !aches. Against the judgment
of the Single Judge, the Regional Rural Banks and the promoted officers D
preferred appeals in the High Court. Division Bench dismissed the appeals
and confirmed the judgement of the Single Judge. The view of both the High
Courts was that the method of selection was contrary to the principle of
'seniority-cum-merit' prescribed by the Rules as Seniority had not been
given due weight and held that the senior most eligible employee should have E
been assessed for the minimum required merit for holding the higher post
and only on his not being found suitable or fit, his immediate junior could
be tested. Aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench, the Regional Rural
Banks and the promoted officers have filed the present appeals.

The appellants contended that the criterion of 'seniority-cum-merit' F
allowed comparative merit to be assessed for the purpose of promotion by
placing reliance on Para 7(c) of the Second Schedule to the Rules; that
\ among officers who where appointed on the same date and have the same
\
length of service seniority cannot have any bearing and promotions have to
be made on the basis of comparative assessment of merit of such officers; G
and that though not challenging the promotions made on May 3, 1998 in
Rayalseena Grameena Bank in this court, but since subsequently some
appellants have also been promoted, the inter se seniority on the post of Area/
Senior Manager should be restored.

This Court explained the criterion of 'seniority-cum-merit' and applying H
784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A the said criterion to each Regional Rural Bank with regard to its peculiar
facts and circumstances.

HELD : l. In the matter of formulation of a policy for promotion to a
-
higher post, the two competing principles which are taken into account are
inter se seniority and comparative merit of employees who are eligible for
B promotion. The principle of 'merit-cum-seniority' lays greater emphasis on
merit and ability and seniority plays a less significant role. Seniority is to
be given weight only when merit and ability are approximately equal. On the
other hand, the criterion of 'seniority-cum-merit' lays greater emphasis on ~
seniority. Comparative assessment of merit is required to be made while
C applying the criterion o{ 'merit-cum-seniority' and for 'seniority-cum-merit'
no such comparative assessment is required. [789-H; 790-A, D; 791-B]

Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor & Ors., (1974) 1 SCR 797,
affirmed.

D Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (1968) 1 SCR 111,
referred to.

. State ofMysore v. C.R Seshadri & Ors., [1974) 3 SCR 87, distinguished.

2. While applying the principle of seniority-cum-merit for the purpose
E of promotion what is required to be considered is inter se seniority of the
employees who are eligible for consideration. Such seniority is normally
determined on the basis of length of service, but as between employees
appointed on the same date and having the same length of service, it is
generally determined on the basis of placement in the select list for
appointment. Such determination of seniority confers certain rights and the
F principle of seniority-cum-merit gives effect to such rights flowing from
seniority. It cannot, therefore, be said that in the matter of promotion on the
basis of seniority-cum-merit seniority has no role where the employees
eligible for promotion were appointed on the same date and have the same
,.
length of service. (794-D-E]
G 3. The criterion 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, sh~ll have priority

H
and a comparative assessment of merit is not required to be made. J;or
assessing the minimum necessary merit the competent authority can lay
down the minimum standard that is required and also prescribe th~ mode of
c
B.V. SIVAIAHv. K. ADDANKI BABU 785
assessment of merit of the employee who is eligible for consideration for A
promotion. Sush assessment can be made by assigning marks on the basis
of appraisal 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. [794-F-G)

State of Kera/a & Anr. v. N.M Thomas & Ors., [1976) 1 SCR 906, B
followed.
State of Mysore &Anr. v. Syed Mahmood & Ors., [1968) 3 SCR 363,
relied on.
Jagathigowda C.N. & Ors. v. Chairman, Cauvery Gramina Bank & C
Ors., [1996] 9 SCC 677, explanied and affirmed.
State of Mysore v. C. R. Seshadri & Ors., [19741 3 SCR 87,
distinguished.
4. Para 7 (c) of the Second Schedule to the Rule dose not lend support
to the contention that the criterion of seniority-cum-merit envisaged by the D
Rule making authority involves assessment of comparative merit for purpose
of promotion. The word 'selection' has been used in the sense of selecting
an officer for promotion on the basis of the criterion of seniority-c11m-merit.
The requirement that such selection shall be made on the basis of interview
and assessment of performance reports for the preceding three years is
consistent with the criterion of seniority-cum-merit and enables an E
assessment to be made about the minimum necessary merit requisite for
efficiency of administration and it cannot be construed as importing
assessment of comparative merit of the officers eligible for promotion.
(792-B-D]
5. Since there was no challenge to the promotions made on May 3, F
1988 till 1993, the promoted officers had been working for nearly five years
by then and had acquired right to seniority on the basis of such promotion
and they cannot be deprived of the said right. The High Court has rightly
held that the belated challenge to the promotions made on May 3, 1988
cannot be entertained. [798-D-E] G

6. In the facts and circumstances, the appeals filed by the Rayalaseena
Grameena Bank, Pinakini Grameena Bank, Baster Kshetriya Gramin Bank,
Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank the officers promoted by these banks are dismissed
as selection has not been made by these banks in accordance with the
principle of 'seniority-cum-merit' by prescribing minimum standard for H
786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A assessing the merit. Selection was made by these banks, of officers who
secured highest number of marks amongst the eligible officers which virtually
amounts to application of the principle of merit-cum- seniority. (801-E]

6.1. In the facts and circumstances, the appeal pertaining to Chhindwara-
Seoni Kshentriya Gramin Bank succeeds as minimum standard was
B prescribed by the bank for assessing the merit of the candidates and those
who fulfilled the said minimum standard were selected for promotion on the
basis ofseniority. (804-F-G)
,
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3798of1996 Etc.
C From the Judgment and order dated 23. 9. 94 of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court in W.A. No. 422. of 1994

P.P. Rao, R. Venkat Ramani, S.B. Sanyal, H.S. Garurafa Rao Sr. Adv., Ms.
C.K. Sucharita, R. Santhanakrishnan, G. Nageshwar Reddy, K.R. Nagaraja,
Prakash Srivastava, S.K. Kulkarni, Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, Amrendar Sharan,
D Shree Prakas Shina, Ms. Ambika Pratap Singh, Satish k. Agnihotri, Ms.
Yogamaya, Ms. Madhur Dadlani, Sandeep Narian, P. Niroop, S. Murlidhar, G.
Prabhakar, Amitabh Verma, Ashok Mathur, Anoop Choudhary, Amarendra
Sharan, Ms. Pratibha Jain, A.P. Dhamija, O.P. Gaggar, Pramod Swarup, Shiv
Sager Tiwari, T.G. Narayanan Nair and P.R. Ramasesh for the appearing parties.

E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S. C. AGRAWAL, J. Leave granted in all Special Petitions.

What is meant by "seniority - cum-merit", the criterion prescribed for
F promotion to the post of Area Manager/Senior Manager in the Regional Rural
Banks under the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment & Promotions of Officers +- -
and Other Employees) Rules, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'] ?
This is the common question which falls for consideration in these appeals.

The regional Rural Banks have been established under the provisions
G of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'].
Section 17 of the Act empowers a Regional Rural Bank to appoint such
number of officers and other officers as it may consider necessary or desirable,
in such manner as may be prescribe, for the efficient performance of its
functions and to determine the terms and conditions of their appointment and
service. Section 24 of the Act lays down that in the discharge of its functions
H a Regional Rural Bank shall be guided by such directions, in regard to matters
B. V. S!VAIAH v. K. AD DANK! BABU [S.C. AGRAWAL, J.] 787
of policy involving public interest, as the Central Government may, after A
' consultation with the national Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development
[hereinafter referred to as 'the National Bank'], give. Under Section 29 of the
Act the Central Government has been empowered to make rules, after
consultation with the National Bank and sponsor Bank, for carrying out the
provisions of the Act, By clause (ba) of sub-section (2) of section 29, which
was inserted by the Regional Rural Banks (Amendment) Act, 1987, the Central B
Government was empowered to make Rules relating to manner in which the
officers and other employees of the Regional Rural Bank shall be appointed.
In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 29 read with Section 17 of
the Act the Central Government framed the Rules which were published vide
Notification dated September 28, 1988. C
Rule 3 of the Rules provides that the Board of Directors of each
Regional Rural Bank may, in consultation with its sponsor Bank, create such
number of posts as are specified in the second schedule to the Rules from
time to time. Rule 4 prescribes that the Board of Directors may, in consultation
with the sponsor Bank, determine the number of vacancies in each post D
keeping in view the guidelines issued by the Central Government from time
to time. Rule 5 makes provision for filling of vacancies and provides that all
vacancies determined under Rule 4 by the Board of Directors shall be filled
by deputation, promotion or direct recruitment in accordance with the
provisions contained in the Second Schedule to the Rules. With regard the
post of Area/Senior Manager the following provision is made in the Second E
Schedule to the Rules:-

"7. Area Managers or Senior Managers

(a) Source of Recruitment : Hundred per cent by promotion from
amongst confirmed officers working F
in the bank. Promotions will be on
the basis of seniority-cum-merit. If
suitable officers are not available
internally, these posts could be filled
by taking temporarily officers of the G
sponsor banks and other banks or
organisations on deputation.

(b) Qualification & Eligibility : ( i) A Graduate of recognized University
or any equivalent qualifications
recognized :is such by Government H
788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A of India, preference being given to .,.
Agriculture or Commerce or
Economics graduates.

(ii) Eight years service as an officer in
the regional rural bank concerned.
B provided that the Board may, with
the prior approval of National Bank,
relax the period of service by a period
not exceeding two years, if suitable
candidates of requisite experience are

c not available.

Note: The post of Area Managers and Senior Managers will
be equivalent in rank and will be interchangeable.

(c) Mode of Selection :

D Interview and assessment of
performance reports for the
preceding three years period as
officer for promotion."

E Prior to the making of the Rules appointment on the post of Area/Senior
Manager in Regional Rural Banks was governed by circulars issued by the
Central Government and the National Bank. By circular dated October I 0, 1987
addressed to the Deputy General manager of the National Bank, the Central
Government indicated the criterian that was required to be followed in the
matter of promotion of Branch Managers to the post of Area Managers/
F Senior Managers in Regional Rural Banks in the following terms :- ~

" ....... It is, therefore, requested that the Chairman of all the RRBs may
be apprised that since the posts of Area Managers/Senior Managers
are promotional posts to be filled up 100% by promotion from only
one source, the non-selection rule of seniority cum merit has to be
G applied. This rule envisages promotion by seniority with due
consideration to minimum merit/fitness prescribed. Fitness implies
that there is nothing against the officer. No disciplinary action is
pending against him and none is contemplated. The officer has neither
been reprimanded nor any adverse remarks have been conveyed to
H him in the reasonably recent past. The promotions are meant to be
B.V. SIVAIAH v. K. ADDANKI BABU [S.C. AGRAWAL,J.] 789

1
made on the above mentioned consideration." A
[emphasis supplied )

In accordance with the said circular the National Bank issued a circular
dated December I, 1987 whereby all the Regional Rural Banks were apprised
that the matter relating to the promotion of Branch Mangers to the posts of B
Area/Senior Managers had been examined by it consultation with the
Government of India and the Regional Rural Banks were advised as under :-

"The posts of Area Managers/Senior Managers are promotional posts
to be filled up by 100% promotion from only one source and non-
selection rule of seniority-cum-merit has to be applied. This rule C
envisages promotion by seniority with due consideration to minimum
merit/fitness prescribed. Fitness implies that there is nothing against
the officer; no disciplinary action is pending against him and none is
contemplated. The officer has neither been reprimanded nor any adverse
remarks have been conveyed to him in the reasonably recent past. D
The promotions are meant to be made on the above mentioned
consideration only. In other words, if a manager satisfies the
qualifications and eligibility criteria and there is nothing adverse against
him, his due promotion should not be denied to him."

These appeals can be categorised in two groups, viz., the Andhra E
Pradesh group and the Madhya Pradesh group. The Andhra Pradesh group
of appeals are directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court dated September 23, 1994 in various writ appeals.
The Madhya Pradesh group of appeals have been filed against the judgments
of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The main judgment, which has been
-; followed by the said High Court in other cases, is in L.P.A. No. 151of1993 F
and connectt:d matters decided on October 9, 1996. In the impugned
judgments, the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh have
taken the view that if"seniority -cum-merit criterion is adopted for the purpose
or promotion then first the senior most eligible employee has to be tested to
find out whether he possesses the minimum required merit for holding the G
higher post and only if he is not found suitable or fit, his immediate junior
may be tested for the purpose of promotion. The said view has been assailed
by the various Regional Rural Banks as well as the promoted officers whose
promotions have been set aside by the impugned judgments.

In the matter of formulation of a policy for promotion to a higher post, H
790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) 3 S.C.R.

A the two competing principles which are taken into account are inter se seniority
and comparative merit of employees who are eligible for promotion. In Sant
Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., [I 968] I SCR I J J, this court has
pointed out that the principle of seniority ensures absolute objectivity by
requiring all promotions to be made entirely on grounds of seniority and that
if a post falls vacant it is filled by the person who had served longest in the
B post immediately below. But the seniority system is so objective that it fails
to take any account of personal merit. It is fair to every official except the best
ones, an official has nothing to win or lose provided he does not actually
y
become so inefficient that disciplinary action has to be taken against him. The
criterion of merit, on the other hand, lays stress on meritorious performance
C irrespective of seniority and even a person, though junior but much more
meritorious his seniors, is selected for promotion. The Court has expressed
the view that there should be a correct balance between seniority and merit
in a proper promotion policy. The criteria of seniority cum-merit' and 'merit-
cum-seniority' which take into account seniority as well as merit seek to
achieve such a balance.
D
The principle of 'merit-cum-seniority' lays greater emphasis on merit
and ability and seniority plays a less significant role. Seniority is to be given
weight only when merit and ability are approximately equal. In the context of
Rule 5(2) of the Indian Administrative Service/Indian Police Service
E (Appointment by promotion) Regulations, I955 which prescribed that "selection
for inclusion in such list shall be based on merit and suitability in all respects
with due regard to seniority" Mathew. J. in Union of India v. Mohan Lal
Capoor & Ors., [1974] I SCR 797, has said :-

" .... for inclusion in the list, merit and suitability in all respects should
be the governing consideration and that seniority should play a
F
secondary role. It is only when merit and suitability are roughly equal •
that seniority will be a determining factor, or if it is not fairly possible
to make an assessment inter se of the merit and suitability of two
eligible candidates and come to a firm conclusion, seniority would tilt
the scale." [p. 80 l]
G
Similarly, Beg J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was) has said :-

"Thus, we think that the correct view, in conformity with the plain
meaning of words used in the relevant rules, is that the "entrance" or
"inclusion" test for a place on the select list, is competitive and
H comparative applied to all eligible candidates and not minimal like
B.V. SIVAIAH v. K. ADDANKIBABU [S.C. AGRAWAL, J.] 791
pass marks at an examination. The Selection Committee has an A
unrestricted choice of the best available talent, from amongst eligible
candidates, determined by reference to reasonable criteria applied in
assessing the facts revealed by service records of all eligible candidates
so that merit and not mere seniority is the governing factor." [p.817]

On the other hand, as between the two principles of senionty and merit, B
the criterion of 'seniority-cum-merit' lays greater emphasis on seniority. In
state of Mysore & Anr. v. Syed Mahmood & Ors., [1968] 3 SCR 363, while
considering Rule 4(3)(b) of the Mysore State Civil Services General Recruitment
Rules, 1957 which required promotion to be made by selection on the basis
of seniority-cum-merit, this Court has observed that the rule required promotion C
to be made by selection on the basis of "seniority subject to the fitness of
the candidate to discharge the duties of the post from among persons eligible
for promotion". It was pointed out that where the promotion is based on
seniority-cum-merit the officer cannot claim promotion as a matter of right by
virtue of his seniority alone and if he is found unfit to discharge the duties
of the higher post, he may be passed over and an officer junior to him may D
be promoted.

In State of Kera/a & Anr. v. NM Thomas & Ors., [1976] 1SCR906, A.N.
Ray CJ. has thus explained the criterion of 'seniority-cum-merit':-

"With regard to promotion the normal principles are either merit-cum- E
seniority or seniority-cum-merit. seniority-cum-merit means that given
the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration,
the senior though the less meritorious shall have priority." [p.930]

The learned counsel for the Regional Rural Banks and the promoted
officers have, however, placed reliance on Para 7(c) of the Second Schedule F
to the Rules which prescribes that the mode of selection for promotion would
be interview and assessment of performance reports for the preceding three
years periods and have submitted that under the criterion of 'seniority-cum-
merit', as prescribed under the Rules, comparative merit has to be assessed
for the purpose of promotion. Reliance has been placed on the following G
observations in State af Mysore v. C.R. Seshadri & Ors., [1974] 3 SCR 87 :-

"However, if the criterion for promotion is one of the seniority-cum-
merit, comparative merit has to be assessed if length of service is
equal or an outstanding junior is available for promotion." (p. 89)

The learned counsel for the Regional Rural Banks and the promoted H
792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A officers have also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Jagathigowda, ;·
C.N. & Ors. v. Chairman, Cauvery Gramina Bank & Ors., [1996] 9 SCC 677.

Para 7( c) of the Second Schedule to the Rules does not, in our opinion,
lend support to the contention that the criterion of seniority-cum-merit
envisaged by the Rule making authority involves assessment of comparative
B merit for the purpose of promotion. The word "selection" has been used in
the sense of selecting an officer for promotion on the basis of the criterion
of seniority-cum-merit. The requirement that such selection shall be made on
the basis of interview and assessment of performance reports for the preceding
three years is consistent with the criterion of seniority-cum-merit as explained
C in the state of Kera/a & Anr. v. NM. Thomas & Ors., (supra) that "given the
necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration" the senior though
the less meritorious shall have priority. The said mode enables an assessment
to be made about the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of
administration and it cannot be construed as importing assessment of
comparative merit of the officers eligible for promotion.
D
In C.R. Seshadri (supra) the Court was considering the question whether
the High Court could have given a direction to the State to give to the
respondent therein notional promotion to the post of Deputy Secretary with
effect from the date on which his junior secured such promotion. This Court
E said that such a direction could not be given by the High Court because
promotion of a government servant was basically in government's discretionary
power and that in the absence of positive proof of the relevant service rules
it was hazardous to assume that by efflux of time the respondent would have
spiralled upto Deputy Secretaryship and that the proper direction could only
be that government would reconsider the case of the respondent afresh for
F purpose of notional promotion. In that context, this Court pointed out that
if the ruie of promotion is one of 'sheer seniority' it may well be that
promotion is a matter of course and that if seniority-cum-merit is the rule,
promotion is problematical. Since the relevant rule governing promotion to the
post of Deputy Secretary had not been placed before it, the Court was not
G required to define the criterion of 'seniority-cum-merit' and to delineate the
fine distinction between the criterion of' seniority-cum-merit' and the criterion
of 'merit-cum-seniority' in the matter of promotion. In the observations on
which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the Rural Banks
and the promoted officers the distinction between 'seniority-cum-merit' and
'merit-cum-seniority' has been obliterated and both the criterion have been
H equated. Since comparative assessment of merit is required to be made while
B.V. SIVAIAH v. K. ADDANKI BABU [S.C. AGRAWAL, J.] 793

applying the criterion of 'merit-cum-seniority' and for 'seniority-cum-merit' no A
such comparative assessment is required, the aforementioned observations in
the case of C.R. Seshadri (supra) on which reliance has been placed cannot
be regarded as correctly reflecting as to what is meant by the criterion of
'seniority-cum-merit'.

In Jagathigowda, C.N. (supra) this Court was dealing with promotion B
made to the post of senior Manager in a rural bank which promotion was
made prior to the Rules and was governed by circulars of the National Bank
dated December 31, 1984 and April 7, 1986. Circular dated December 31, 1984
provided that promotion to the post of Area Manager/Senior Manager should
be on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. By circular dated April 7, 1986 it was C
prescribed that selection of the eligible candidates should be based on
performance of respective candidates in the bank to be assessed by a Staff
Selection Committee after interviewing the candidates. The selection was
made by the selection Committee after calling the eligible officers for interview
in accordance with their seniority and in the interview the marks were awarded
according to the performance appraisal forms. The officers who obtained 85 D
marks out of 150 were shortlisted for promotion. The performance appraisal
comprised of matters such as dimension of work, general intelligence, job
knowledge, initiative and resourcefulness etc. The service record of the officers
who assailed the promotion before the High Court was adverse. In the judgment
under appeal the High Court had set aside the promotion on the ground that E
service record of the recent past should have been taken into consideration
and in case there was nothing adverse against an officer he could not be
denied promotion on the ground that some other junior to him was more
meritorious and that promotions were made on the basis of selection inasmuch
as marks were assigned on the basis of performance appraisal and interview.
The said judgment of the High Court was reversed by this Court. It was F
observed that the circular dated April 7, 1986 issued by the National Bank
specifically provided that 'the selection of the eligible candidates should be
based on performance of respective candidates in the bank'. It was held that
the High Court was not justified in holding that the performance appraisal
could not be taken into consideration while considering the officers for G
promotion to the higher rank. It was also observed that "while making
promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit the totality of the service
record of the officer concerned has to be taken into consideration". This
judgment, in our opinion, does not make a departure from the law laid down
by this Court in the earlier judgments explaining the criterion of 'seniority-
cum-merit' because in this case the selection had been made by taking into H
794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) 3 S.C.R.

A account the seniority as well as performance and performance was appraised
by assigning marks on the basis of performance appraisal and interview. '
Those who secured 85 marks out of 150 marks were shortlisted for promotion
which shows that securing 85 marks out of 150 marks was treated as the
minimum standard of merit for purposes of promotion and those who satisfied
the said minimum standard were selected for promotion on the basis of
B seniority.

On behalf of the promoted officers it was urged that for the purpose of
promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, seniority means the length of
service and that among officers who were appointed on the same date and
C have the same length of service seniority can have no bearing and promotion
has to be made on a comparative assessment of merit of such officers. We
are unable to agree. While applying the principle of seniority-cum- merit for
the purpose of promotion what is required to be considered is inter se
seniority of the employees who are eligible for consideration. Such seniority
is normally determined on the basis of length of service, but as between
D employees appointed on the same date and having the same length of service,
but as between employees appointed on the same date and having the same
length of service, it is generally determined on the basis of placement in the
select list for appointment. Such determination of seniority confers certain
rights and the principle of seniority-cum-merit gives effect to the such rights
flowing from seniority. It cannot, therefore, be said that in the matter of
E promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit seniority has no role where the
employees eligible for promotion were appointed on the same date and have
the same length of service.

We thus arrive at the conclusion that the criterion of 'seniority-cum-
F 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 assessment of merit 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
G consideration for promotion. ~uch assessment can be made by assigning
marks on the basis of appraisal 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.

We may now examine whether the aforesaid criterion has been correctly [
H followed by the concerned Banks in making the impugned promotions. We
B.V. SIVAIAH v. K. ADDANKI BABU [S.C. AGRAWAL, J.) 795

will first take up the Andhra Pradesh group of appeals which have been field A
against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated September 23,
1994. These appeals relate to two banks, namely, the Rayalaseema Grameena
Bank and the Pinakini Grameena Bank. It Would be convenient to deal with
the appeals relating to each bank separately.

Rayalaseema Grameena Bank :- In March 1988 the Rayalaseema B
Grameena Bank decided to create four posts of senior Managers and four
posts of Area Managers. The Senior Managers work in the office whereas the
Area Managers work in the field. By circular dated March 3, 1988 the Board
of Directors of the Rayalaseema Grameena Bank laid down the following
promotion process:-
c
"(A) ELIGIBILITY :- The Officers who have put in 8 (Eight) years of
service in the Bank in the cadre of branch Manager as on 3 1-
12-1987 are eligible to be considered for the promotion process.

(B) MODALITIES : D
(a) Seniority - 45 marks (0.5 marks for each completed
month of service over and above
the minimum qualifying service)

(b) Qualif-ication - 5 marks (Minimum qualification applicable
to the cadre shall not be reckoned) E
Post Graduation - I mark
Diplomat's - l mark
CAIIB - Part I - l mark
CAIIB - Part II - 2 Marks
F
(c) Leave - record - 5 marks

(d) Interview - 30 marks

(e) Performance - 65 marks

02. These promotions will be effective .from !st May, 1988.
G
03. The eligible candidates will be called for the interview directly
(candidates need not submit any application in this. regard)"

Following the said promotion process eight Branch managers were promoted
with effect from May I, 1988 in proceedings dated May 3, 1988. The Branch
Managers who were promoted as Area/Senior Managers on May 3, 1988 H
796 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1998) 3 S.C.R.

A assumed office and their promotions were not questioned by any employee
at that time.
•

After the Rules framed by the Central Government vide Notification dated
September 28, 1988 came into force the Rayalaseema Grameena Bank, in
September 1989, decided to create five posts of Area/senior Managers and,
B by circular dated September 27, 1989, formulated the following promotion
process for filling up of these five posts: -

"I. ELIGIBILITY:

All the Officer (Branch Managers) who have joined the service of the
c Bank on or before 1-4-1981 are eligible to be considered for the
promotion process.

2. MODALITIES :

(a) Seniority - 34 marks ( 0.75 mark for each completed
D month of service over and above
the minimum qualifying service)

(b) Qualifications - I 0 marks (Minimum qualification applicable
to the cadre shall not be reckoned)

E Post Graduation - 3 marks
Double Graduation - I mark
(like BL, LLB, B.ED.)
Any Diploma/s. - 2 marks
CAIIB - Part I - 2 marks
F CAIIB - Part II - 2 marks

(c) Interview - 20 marks

(d) Perfonnance - 56 marks

All the eligible candidates will be called for the interview
G
directly. (Candidates need not submit any applications in this
regard)."
...
Following that process, five Branch managers were promoted -two as Area
Managers and three as Senior managers - in the proceedings dated December [
H 1, 1989.
B.V. SIV AIAH v. K. ADDANKJ BABU [S.C. AGRAWAL, J.] 797

Promotions made in the proceedings dated December 1, 1989 were A
challenged before the Andhra pradesh high court by one K.V.T. Prasanna
Kumar (by filing Writ Petition No. 17263 of 1989 on December II, 1989), G.
Anantha Raju, P. Sainath Reddy and C. Vijayakumar Reddy (by filing Writ
Petition No. 17279of1989 on December 12, 1989) and P.V. Krishna Murthy
(by filing Writ Petition No. 3546of1990 on February 16, 1990). During the
pendency of the said writ petitions P.V. Krishna Murthy filed another Writ B
Petition (Writ Petition No. 9692of1993) on July 13, 1993 in the High Court
wherein he assailed the promotions made on May 3, 1988 but none of the
candidates promoted during the year 1988 to the posts of Area/Senior Manager
was impleaded as party respondent. All the four Writ Petitions were heard
together by a learned single judge of the High Court who, by his judgment C
dated September 7, 1993, allowed Writ Petitions Nos. 17263 and 17279of1989
and 3546 of 1990 and declared that the promotions made on December 1, 1989
to the post of Area/Senior managers from the post of Branch Manager in the
Rayalaseema Grameena Bank were illegal and improper. Writ petition No. 9692
of 1993 filed by P.V. Krishna Murthy, in which the promotions made on May
3, 1988 the 1988 were assailed, was, however, dismissed on the ground of D
!aches. Against the said judgement of the learned single judge Writ Appeals
Nos. 1242of1993, 1232of1993 and 1238of1993 were filed by the Chainnan,
Rayalaseema Grameena Bank, and Writ Appeals Nos. 1233of1993 and 1234
of 1993 were filed by the five Branch Managers whose promotions as Areal
Senior Managers made on December 1, 1989 had been quashed by the learned E
single Judge. Writ Appeals Nos. 1142of1993 and 1224of1993 were filed by
P.V. Krishnamurthy, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3546of1990 and Writ
Petition No. 9692of1993 and Writ Appeal No. 1210of1993 was filed by two
of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 17279 of 1989. These appeals related
to the promotions made on May 3, 1988.
F
In Writ Appeal No. l l <f2 of 1993 a contention was raised that the
promotions made on May 3, 1988 had been questioned in Writ Petition No.
17263 of 1989~ The said contention was rejected by the Division Bench of the
High Court and it was observed that the prayer in the said writ petition was
clear and categorical and no relief was sought for in respect of the promotions G
made· on May 3, 1988. In Writ Appeal No. 1210of1993 an application was
made seeking amendment of the prayer in Writ Petition No. 17279of1989 to
challenge the promotions made on May 3, 1988 but the said application was
rejected by the learned judges on the Division Bench of the High Court. As
regards challenge to the validity of promotions made on May 3, 1988 the
learned judges held that Writ Petition No. 9692 of 1993 had been filed after H
798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) 3 S.C.R.

A a lapse of about four years after the promotions were effected in the year 1988
and the conduct of the writ petitioners in keeping quiet and submitting ·
themselves to the promotion process undertaken by the Bank for filling up
the posts in the 1989 disentitled them to seek relief in respect of promotions
made in .the year 1988 inasmuch as some rights had accrued in favour of the
employees promoted on May 3, 1988 and if their promotions were to be set
B aside subsequent to the promotions made on December I, 1989 it would cause
them irreparable Joss. The learned judges on the Division Bench of the High
Court, therefore, dismissed.Writ Appeal Nos. 1142 of 1993, 1224 of 1993 and
1210of1993. Civil Appeals Nos. 3804-3808of1996 have been filed against
that part of the judgment of the High Court relating to the promotions made
C on May 3, 1988.

The learned counsel for the appellants in these appeals has submitted
that now the appellants do not challenge the promotions that were made on
May 3, 1988 since they have also been promoted as Area/Senior Managers
and they are only raising the question regarding restoration of the inter se
D seniority of the appellants and the promoted officers on the post of Area/
Senior Manager. We do not find any merit in this contention. Since there was
no challenge to the promotions made on May 3, 1988 till 1993, the promoted
officers had been working for nearly five years by then and had acquired right
to seniority on the basis of such promotion and they cannot be deprived of
the said right. The High court, in our opinion, has rightly held that the belated
E challenge to the promotions made on May 3, 1988 raised by the appellants
in these appeals cannot be entertained. Civil Appeals Nos. 3804-3808 of 1996
are, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

Writ Appeals Nos. 1242of1993, 1232of1993 and 1238of1993 filed by
the Rayalaseema Grameena Bank and Writ Appeals Nos. 1233 of 1993 and
F 1234 of 1993 filed by the five Branch Managers who were promoted as Area/
Senior Managers on the basis of proceedin~ dated December 1, 1989 were
dismissed by the Division bench of the High Court on the view that the Bank
had considered the cases of all the eligible officers for promotion to the posts
of Area/Senior Managers and only those who secured highest number of
marks amongst them were ultimately promoted and that this method of selection
G is contrary to the principle of '.seniority-cum-merit'. Civil Appeals Nos. 3799-
3803 of 1996 have been filed by the Rayalaseema Grameena Bank, while Civil
Appeals Nos. 3811-3812 of 1996 have been filed by five Branch Managers
who have been promoted as Area/Senior managers in the proceeding on

H
December I, 1989 against this part of the judgment of the High Court.

Having heard the learned counsel for the Rayalaseema Grameena Bank
c
B.V. SJVAIAH v. K. ADDANKI BABU [S.C. AGRAWAL, J.] 799

as well as five Branch Managers who had been promoted as Area/Senior A
Managers in the proceeding on December 1, 1989, we find that no case is
made out for interference with the said view of the High Court. The promotion
process laid down by the Rayalaseema Grameena Bank in its circular dated
September 27, 1989, on the basis of which the selection for promotion had
been made on December 1, 1989, sets apartJ4 marks for seniority, 10 marks
for qualifications, 20 marks for interview and 56 marks for performance which B
shows that out of a total number of 120 marks the maximum number of marks
that could be awarded for seniority is 34 and that 0.75 mark was to be given
for each completed month of service over and above the minimum qualifying
service. In other words, if two persons are appointed on the same day, the
same number of marks had to be awarded for seniority. Moreover, out of a C
total number of 120 marks more than 50% marks were set apart for interview
and performance. The High Court has found that only those officers who had
secured the highest number of marks were ultimately promoted. It is not a
case where minimum qualifying marks are prescribed for assessment of
performance and merit and those who secure the prescribed minimum qualifying D
marks are selected for promotion on the basis of seniority. In the circumstances,
it must be held that the High Court has rightly come to the conclusion that
the mode of selection that was in fact employed was contrary to the principle
of 'seniority-cum-merit' laid down in the Rules. Civil Appeals Nos. 3799-3803
of 1996 filed by the Rayalaseema Grameena Bank as well as Civil Appeals Nos.
3811-3812 of 1996 filed by the promoted officers are, therefore , liable to be E
dismissed.

PINAKINI GRAMEENA BANK :- On February 19, 1992 the Board of
Directors of the Pinakini Grameena Bank decided to create two posts of Area
Managers and four posts of Senior Managers. The Board formulated the F
promotion policy and communicated it to all the branches through its circular
No. 37/PSD/13/92 dated March 16, 1992 which laid down the following
promotion process :-

"ELIGIBILITY: The officers (managers) who have completed 8 years
of service as on 31.03.1992 are eligible for considering the promotion G
to Area/Senior Manager posts.

WEIGHTAGE OF MARKS:

(a) Seniority : 55 marks
Officers (Managers) who have H
800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] 3 S.C.R.

A completed 8 years of service
as per SSR of the Bank.
(b) For passing CAIIB Part - I : 2 marks
CAIIB Part - II : 3 marks
(c) Performance : 25 marks
B (d) Interview : 15 marks

Total 100 marks

Further, we observe that many of the Officers (Managers) have not
submitted the performance appraisals for the years 1989, 1990 and
c 1991 to assess their performance. Such officers are advised to submit
the performance appraisals so as to reach HO:PSD on or before
31.03 .1992. Otherwise, we will be constrained to assess their
performance based on he information available with us.

A Committee is constituted for the purpose of conducting interview
D as per Government of India guidelines.

The dates of interview will be intimated to the candidates individually,
in due course."

E In the proceeding held on April 20, 1992 five Branch Managers were
promoted as Area/Senior Managers. Three Btanch Managers, namely, K.
Addanki Babu, P. Raghava Rao and V.C. Krishna Prasad filed Writ Petition No.
5204 of 1992 in Andhra Pradesh High Court wherein they challenged the order
dated April 20, 1992 regarding the promotion of the said five Branch Managers
as Area/Senior Managers. The said Writ Petition was allowed by the learned
F single judge by his judgment dated December 17, 1993 wherein he followed
the earlier judgement of the learned single Judge dated September 7, 1993
given in the Writ Petitions relating to the Rayalaseema Grameena Bank . Writ
Appeal No. 417 of 1994 was filed by the Pinakini Grameena Bank, while Writ
Appeal No. 422 of 1994 was filed by the promoted officers whose promotions
G were set aside by the judgment of the learned single Judge. Both these
appeals have been dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The
learned Judges have pointed out that the cases of all officers eligible for
promotion to the posts of Area/Senior Managers were considered and only
those who secured highest number of marks amongst them were ultimately
promoted and that this method of selection is contrary to the principle of
H 'seniority-cum-merit'. Civil Appeal Nos. 3809-3810of1996 have been filed by
B.V. SIVAIAH v. K. ADDANKIBABU [S.C. AGRAWAL, J.] 801

the Chairman, the Pinakini Grameena Bank, while Civil Appeal No. 3798 of A
1996 has been filed by the promoted officers against that part of the judgment
of the High Court.

From the circular dated March 16, 1992 laying down the promotion
process it is evident that selection was to be made on the basis of marks to
be awarded by the Selection Committee and that out of total number of I 00 B
marks, 55 marks were to be awarded for seniority while 25 marks were assigned
for performance and 15 marks for interview. There was no indication in the
said circular as to how 55 marks for seniority were to be given to the Branch
Managers who were eligible for consideration for promotion on March 31,
1992. The said circular did not prescribe minimum qualifying marks for C
assessment of performance and merit on the basis of which an officer would
be considered for being selected and, as pointed out by the High Court, the
selection was made of only those officers who secured highest number of
marks amongst the eligible officers. In the circumstances, the High Court, in
our view, has rightly held that this method of selection was contrary to the D
principle of 'seniority-cum-merit' and it virtually amounts to the application
-j of the principle of 'merit-cum-seniority'. We, therefore, do not find any merit
in Civil Appeal Nos. 3809-3810of1996 and 3798of1996 and the same are also
liable to be dismissed.
E
We would now take up the Madhya Pradesh group of appeals which
relate to three banks, namely, Bastar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Rewa Sidhi
Gramin Bank and Chhindwara-Seoni Kshetriya Gramin Bank. The appeals
relating to these banks are also being dealt with separately.

Baster Kshetriya Gramin Bank: - Selection process for the purpose of F
promotion to the post of Area Manager/Senior Manager in the Baster Kshetriya
Gramin Bank was contained in the circular dated February 16, 1993 . The said
selection was made on the basis of interview of all the eligible officers by the
Staff Selection Committee a~ per the Rules and a select list of five persons
was prepared and on the basis of the said select list promotions were made. G
The said promotions were .challenged by three officers who, though senior,

... were not promoted, by filing Writ Petition Nos. 43 and 45 of 1993 in the
Madhya Pradesh High Court. The said Writ Petitions were allowed by the
learned single Judge by judgment dated July 24, I 996 on the view that where
Rules prescribed promotion on the basis of 'seniority-cum-merit' then seniority H
802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A !~s to be given due place and merely because a person has a better merit,
he cannot be promoted over and above the person senior to him unless he
lacks in qualification or is otherwise found to be unfit, i.e., there is nothing
against him, and that this was not the position in the instant case and that
the concept of seniority had been given no weightage in this case. Letters
B Patent Appeals (L.P.A. Nos. 150 and 152 of 1996) filed against the said
judgment of the learned single Judge were dismissed by the Division Bench
of the High Court by the impugned judgment dated October 9, 1996. The
learned Judges on the Division Bench have found that the Bank has given
weightage to merit first and second place has been given to seniority and that
C this shows that the Selection Committee has acted contrary to the principles
prescribed under the Rules and that the selections be made by way of merit-
cum-seniority and not by way of seniority-cum-merit as required by the Rules.
Civil Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 17780-81 of 1997
have been filed against the said judgment of the High Court by the promoted
officers whose promotion has been quashed by the High Court.
D
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. It is not disputed
that the selection was made on the basis of marks assigned on the basis of r -

interview by the Selection Committee and those who secured the highest
marks were selected. The selection process adopted for the purpose of
E promotion to the post of Area Manager/Senior Managers was thus not in
consonance with the principle of 'seniority-cum -merit' and the promotions
were not made in accordance with the Rules. Civil Appeals arising out of
Special Leave Petition {C) No. 17780-81 of 1997 are, therefore, liable to be
dismissed.
F
Rewa Sidhi Gram in Bank : - On February 2, 1989 the Chairman of the
Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank issued the promotion policy for promotion of Field
Supervisors and Officers of the bank to the higher posts. In paragraph 2.3 of
the said policy it was prescribed that promotion from "Officer to Area/Senior
Manager, subject to satisfaction of minimum period of service, shall be, at
G present, on the basis of assessment of his overall performance based on
appraisal reports on him and his potentiality to shoulder higher responsibilities
assessed in the interview, duly supplemented by weightages for seniority, job
responsibility, placement/posting/mobility". With regard to promotion from
Officer to Area/Senior Manager the following promotion criteria were laid
H down:
B.V. SIVAIAH v. K. ADDANKI BABU [S.C. AGRAWAL, J.] 803

Promotion Percentage Weightage A
Seniority Job resp- Placement/ Perfor- Inter-
onsibility posting/ mance view
mobility
Officer to Areal 15 12 8 40 25
Senior Manager B
As regards weightage for seniority it was provided in Paragraph 2.4 that
one mark for each completed year of service in the respective cadre/post,
subject to a maximum of 15 marks in respect of promotion from Officer to
Area/Senior Manager would be given. It was further laid down:-

"2. 9. Candidates who have secured less than 40% marks in interview C
will not be considered for promotion and their names will not be
included in the final merit list.

2.10 . The list of successful candidates in the order of total marks
obtained will be placed by the staff selection committee before the D
Board, duly recommended for consideration for appointment or
promotion." (emphasis supplied)

In accordance with the aforesaid promotion policy selection was made
for promotion to the post of Area/Senior Manager in the Bank and the
selected officers were appointed as Area/Senior Managers vide order dated E
May 17, 1989. The said selection and appointment was challenged before the
Madhya Pradesh High Court by officers who were not selected by filing Writ
Petitions (M.P. Nos. 2268of1990 and 1937of1990). The said writ petitions
were allowed by the learned single Judge by judgment dated June 2, 1997.
Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 91 and 92 of 1997 filed against the said judgment
of the learned single Judge were dismissed by the Division Bench of the High F
Court by judgment dated September 5, 1997. Civil Appeals arising out of
Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 19965-19966of1997 have been filed against
the said judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division
Bench of the High Court has followed its earlier judgment dated July 4, 1994
in LP.A. No. 120 of 1997 which judgment was based on the earlier judgment G
dated October 9, 1996 passed in LP.A. No. 151 of 1996 and other connected
matters. Civil Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 17780-
81 of 1997 filed against the judgment dated October 9, 1996 have been
dismissed. For the same reasons, Civil Appeals arising out of Special Leave
Petition (C) Nos. 19965-19966 of 1997 are also liable to re dismissed inasmuch H
804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A as according to the promotion policy dated February 2, 1989 selection was
made on the basis of total number of marks obtained by the eligible candidates.
'
The criterion of the promotion policy cannot be regarded as being in
consonance with the principle of 'seniority-cum-merit' as prescribed under
the Rules. Civil Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 19965-
B 19966 of 1997 are, therefore, dismissed.

Chhindwara - Seoni Kshetriya Gramin Bank : By order dated April 8,
1993 promotions were made to the post of Area/Senior Manager in the
Chhindwara -Seoni Kshetriya Gramin Bank on the basis of the recommendations
made by a Selection Committee. The said recommendations were made on the
C basis of marks awarded after interview and assessment of the performance of
the candidates eligible for promotion. The said promotions were challenged
before the Madhya Pradesh High Court by filing a Writ Petition (M.P. No.
1931 of 1993) which has been allowed by the learned single Judge by his
judgment dated February 7, 1997 in view of the earlier judgment dated July
D 24, 1996 passed in M.P. No. 943 of 1993. The said judgment was based on
the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in LP.A. No. 151 of
1996. Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7321 of 1997
has been filed by one of the promoted officers against the said judgment of
the learned single Judge of the High Court.
E
During the course of hearing of the appeal the learned counsel for the
respondent - Bank has placed before us the relevant documents relating to
the impugned selection and promotion. On a perusal of the said documents
we find that 50 marks out of the total of I 00 marks were prescribed as the
minimum qualifying marks for interview and only those who had obtained the ·
F qualifying marks in interview were selected for promotion on the basis of
seniority. It was, therefore, a case where a minimum standard was prescribed
for assessing the merit of the candidates and those who fulfilled the said
minimum standard were selected for promotion on the basis of seniority. In
the circumstances, it cannot be said that the selection has not been made in
.G accordance with the principle of 'seniority-cum-merit'. We are, therefore,
unable to uphold the impugned judgment of the High Court. The appeal has
to be allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court dated February
7, 1997 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court has to be set
aside and the promotion of the appellant on the post of Area/Senior Manager
H under order dated ~pril 8, 1993 has to be affirmed.
B.V. SIVAIAHv. K. ADDANKIBABU [S.C.AGRAWAL,J.] 805
In the result, Civil Appeal Nos. 3798of1996, 3809-3810of1996, 3799- A
3803of1996, 3811-38}2 ofl996, 3804-3808of1996 and Civil Appeals arising
out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 17780-17781 of 1997 and 19965-19966
of 1997 are dismissed. Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 7321of1997 is allowed and the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High
Court dated February 7, 1997 in M.P. No. 1931 of 1993 is set aside and the B
said writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
v.s.s. Appeal dismissed.