Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5497 of 2004 ====================================================== 1. Rakesh Kumar, S/O Janendra Singh, r/o Mohalla- Hanuman Nagar, Adampur, P.S. Kotwali, District-Bhagalpur 2. Shankar Mukherjee, S/O Bimlendra Nath Mukherjee, r/o Naya Tola, P.S. Banka, District- Banka .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank - through its Chairman Bhagat Singh Chouk, Munger 2. Chairman, Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Bhagat Singh Chouk, Munger 3. Shailendra Kumar, S/O Jangi Singh at Present posted as Manager, P.A.D., Gramin Bank, H.O. Bhagalpur 4. Rajesh Kumar Verma, S/O Not Known at present posted as Manager, Gramin Bank, Branch Office, Shambhuganj, Banka 5. Rajiv Ranjan, S/O Not Known at present Manager, Gramin Bank, Branch Office, Suiya, Banka 6. Shashi Kant Pandey, S/O Not Known at present posted as Manager, Gramin Bank, Branch Office, Dariyapur, Bhagalpur 7. Ravi Bhushan Verma, S/O Not Known at present posted as Officer-In- Charge, Gramin Bank, Extension Counter, Bhikhanpur, Bhagalpur 8. Kishore Kumar Choudhary, S/O Not Knwon at present posted as Manager, B.M.I.S. Gramin Bank, H.O. Bhagalpur 9. Ajay Kumar Jha, S/O Mahendra Jha, at present posted as Manager, Gramin Bank, Branch Office, Shyam Bazar, Banka 10. S.A. Rafiqui, S/O Not Known, at present posted as Manager, Gramin Bank, Branch Office Gaura, Chauki, Bhagalpur ====================================================== Appearance :
Legal Reasoning
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, Advocate .... .... Respondent/s 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.5497 of 2004 (5) dt.02-04-2013 2 / 6 Mr. Ganesh Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent Bank : Mr. R.N.Mukhopadhyay, Advocate For the Respondent Nos. 4,5 & 6 : Mr. Keshav Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma, Advocate Mrs. Priya, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 5 02-04-2013 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that the seniority list of the Officers in Scale I as on 31.12.1993 of the respondent Bank as circulated by Circular No.14 of 1994 dated 19.4.1994 (Annexure 2) showing them senior to the private respondent nos. 3 to 10 be restored and the fresh seniority list of Officers of Scale I as on 31.3.2004 of the respondent Bank as circulated by Circular No.76/2003-04 dated 31.3.2004 (Annexure 1) whereby the private respondent nos. 3 to 10 have been shown senior to the petitioners be held to be inoperative and be directed to be ignored. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners as also private respondent nos. 3 to 10 all were appointed in the service of the then Bhagalpur-Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank as Class I Officers through common selection process initiated in the year 1989 and all of them were appointed in the year 1990. In the merit list, name of petitioner no.1 was at serial no. 13 and that of petitioner no.2 was at serial 12, whereas names of private respondent nos. 3 to 10 were at serial nos. 14 to 27. It is also 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.5497 of 2004 (5) dt.02-04-2013 3 / 6 submitted that in view of the merit position of the petitioners vis-à-vis respondent nos. 3 to 10, seniority list was published on 19.4.1994 (Annexure-2) wherein petitioners were shown seniors to the private respondent nos. 3 to 10. It is the grievance of the petitioners that once they were shown senior to the private respondents, then their seniority could not have been altered and they could not have been shown juniors to the private respondents in the fresh seniority list dated 31.3.2004 (Annexure-1). 4. It would be relevant to mention here that during the pendency of the present writ petition, Bhagalpur- Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank and two other Regional/Rural Banks were merged together in the light of notification dated 12.9.2005 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) and thereafter, the aforesaid Regional/Rural Banks have been renamed as Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank having its headquarter at Munger. In view of the aforesaid developments, by an order dated 23.1.2013 passed by this Court, prayer for amendment was allowed and necessary corrections in the cause title of the present writ petition were permitted to be made, which have been carried out by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank and learned counsel appearing on behalf of private respondent nos. 4,5 and 6 have strongly opposed the prayer made in the present writ application and have supported the fresh seniority list dated 31.3.2004 (Annexure 1) whereby private respondents have been shown seniors to the petitioners. 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.5497 of 2004 (5) dt.02-04-2013 4 / 6 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank has fairly submitted by placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit that it is true that the petitioners as also private respondents were appointed in the year 1990 on the basis of common merit list, however their initial appointment was on probation for one year. Though private respondents completed their period of probation within the time prescribed, but the petitioners could not complete their period of probation within the prescribed time, and admittedly in their case period of probation was extended. He has drawn the attention of this Court towards the provisions of Bhagalpur-Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank Staff Service Regulations, 1985 ( in short ‘Service Regulations’), brought on record as Annexure R/1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2. By referring to Regulation 13 (3) of the aforesaid Service Regulations, it has been submitted that in case of an Officer or an employee, whose probation period has been extended, his seniority is required to be reckoned just below all other Officers or employees recruited or promoted in the same batch along with that Officer. 6. It has further been pointed out by learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents that seniority list dated 19.4.1994 (Annexure 2) was provisional in nature and was subject to change/alteration in the seniority position after correction, if some mistake was pointed out by any of the employees included in that seniority list. It has been pleaded by the respondents that since the petitioners did not complete their probation within the time prescribed, therefore, under regulation 13 (3) of the Service Regulations, 1985, the petitioners were/are 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.5497 of 2004 (5) dt.02-04-2013 5 / 6 required to be placed in the bottom of the list of the Officers appointed in the year 1990 on the basis of same selection process. It has also been pleaded that in view of apparent mistakes and in view of provisions contained in Service Regulations, 1985, private respondents filed their representations for correction/modification of the aforesaid seniority list. Accordingly, taking into consideration the provisions of Service Regulations and considering the representations filed by the private respondents, the seniority list dated 19.4.1994 (Annexure-2) was corrected and modified, and the fresh seniority list of the Officers of Scale I of the respondent Bank as on 31.3.2004 (Annexure 1) has been circulated wherein the private respondents have been shown
Decision
senior to the writ petitioners. It is also pointed out that against the aforesaid seniority list the petitioners had filed representation before the chairman of the respondent Bank which has been disposed of by a reasoned and speaking order dated 14.8.2004, which has been brought on record as Annexure R/5 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2. 7. Admittedly, the aforesaid order dated 14.8.2004 (Annexure R/5) has not been challenged by the petitioners till date, though a copy of the counter affidavit was served on the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as far back as on 18.8.2004 and since then almost nine years have elapsed. 8. After having heard the parties and for the reasons recorded above, and further for the reasons disclosed in Annexure R/5 for rejecting the claim of the petitioners, this 6 Patna High Court CWJC No.5497 of 2004 (5) dt.02-04-2013 6 / 6 Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned seniority list dated 31.3.2004 ( Annexure-1). 9. Consequently, the writ petition has to fail. It is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Kanth/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)