1. Chichula Bhaskara Rao v. 1. Union of lndia

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature oi Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders of rejection dt. 07.04.2022 and 16.09.2022 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and set aside the same and further direct the Respondents to include vacancies of Assistants in Class lll for the year 2019-2020, which have arisen falling under the promotion quota of 3 percentage and to fill up the same basing on the performance in departmental examination conducted on 30.01 .2O22 and the merit list published on 10.02.2022 and consequently consider the Petitioners for promotion to the post of Class lll with all consequential benefits. |.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to fill up 5 posts of Assistant in Class lll, pending disposal of the above writ petition. LA.NO:3 OF 2024 Between

1. Reserve bank of lndia, Central office, 20th Floor, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Mgmbai Through its Chairman.

2. The Deputy General Manager, Reserve Bank of lndia, Central Office 20th Floor, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Mumbai.

3. The Regional Director, Reserve Bank of lndia, Human Resources Department, Saifabad, Hyderabad - S00 004.

4. The General Manager, Reserve Bank of lndia, Human Resources Department, Saifabad, Hyderabad - S00 OO4. 5- The Assistant General Manager (Admin) Reserve Bank of lndia, Human Resources Department, Saifabad, Hyderabad -500 004. .....PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 2 to 6 AND

1. Chichula Bhaskara Rao, Sio Ramulu, Aged 49 years, Occ. Senior Security Guard of Reserve Bank of lndia, R:/o Flat No. 41-06, RBI Staff quarters, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad-500 073.

2. .Junnuru Veera Venkata Surya Prakash, (Dismissed as withdrawn) S/o J.Ramakrishna, aged 47 years, Occ. Office Assistant at Reserve Bank of lndia, Hyderabad.Ryo Flat No.C1-83, RBI Staff Quarters, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad-73.

3. Vijay Prakash Singh, S/o Late Balakrishna Singh Aged 48 years, Occ. Office Attendant Reserve Bank of lndia, Hyderabad Rl/o Flat No.107, RV Kausthuba Partment, Suchitra, Hyderabad-500067

4. Shaik Khasim Vali, S/o Shaik Khasim Peera, Aged 42 yearc, Occ. Senior Security Guard, Reserve Bank of India, Fl/o Flat No.C1-81, RBI Staff Quarters, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad-73.

5. Velagapudi Siva Ramakrishna, S/o Venkateswara Rao, Aged 42 years, Occ. Senior Security Guard at Reserve Bank of lndia, R/o Flat No. C1-85, RBI Staff Quarters, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad. (As per Court Order dated 21-2-2024 vide l.A.No.2 ot 2O24 in WP.No.590 of 2024, petitioner No.2 is dismissed as withdrawn)

6. Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, Governrnent of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi. ....RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS .....RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.1 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the adinterim order dated 23-1-2024 in W.P.NO 590 ot 2O24 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner Nos.1, 3 to 5 : SRI M.SRIKANTH Gounsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI G.SANJEEVA REDDY (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) Gounsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI B.NALIN KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING M/s.,N,LEGAL, HYDERABAD Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.3 to 6 : - The Court made the following ORDER Y' I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK ORDER: 1VRIT PETITION No.59O of 2024 This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is liled seeking the following relief: "... declaring the orders of rejection dt.O7.O4.2022 and 16.O9.2022 as illeeal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and set aside the same arrd further direct the Respondents to include vacancies of Assistants in Class III for the year 2O l9-2O2O, which have arisen falling under the promotion quota of 37o and to fill up the same basing on the performance in departmental examination conducted on 3O.O7.2O22 and the merit list published on 1O.O2.2O22 and, consequently consider the Petitioners for promotion to t}re post of Class III with all consequential benehts...." 2l Heard Sri M. Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for petitioners 1, 3 to 5, Sri G.Sanjeeva Reddy, learned counsel, for respondent No.1 and Sri B.Nalin Kumar, learned Senior counsel, representing M/s. 'N' Legal, Hyderabad, learnecl counsel for respondent No.2 3) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners (i.e. petitioners 1, 3 to 5 only as petitioner No.2 has withdrawn the writ petition) earlier worked in Indian Army/Navy/Air Force and later they rvere selected and appointed in the category of Class-IV in Reserve Bank of India on OS.OT.2OI3 and, LS.O2.2OLT respectively and since then they have been working as such. Earlier, the respondent-Bank and employees Union have entered into a Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) for -2- PK, J wP_590 2024 providing a channel of promotion to the next category of Class-lll posts. As per the Settlement dated 29.04.2014, promotion was to be based on a departmental examination to be conducted every year. Further, as per the settlement, 3o/o of the actual working strength for Class-lll employees, as on 1st January of the Calendar Year, would have to be Iilled up by promotion. As per the agreement, the examination prescribed was an objective type of examination. Further, the minimum service required to be eligible for promotion was five years and the Settlement was agreed to be valid for live years irom

29.08.2014 and was in force till the panel year 2OlB, after which, the scheme has to be reviewed by mutual consent. Learned counsel has further contended that during the years 2019 and 2O2O, neither departmental examination were held nor scheme was reviewed, It is contended that till a fresh settlement is entered between the Management and Union, earlier settlement would continue to govern the relations between the parties to the settlement. Therefore, the respondents ought to have conducted departmental examination for both the years i.e. 2019 and 2O2O. It is further contended that insofar as Class-lll sta-ff, who also fall under the category of workmen, are concemed departmental tests have been conducted and they have been promoted to the next higher category of Assistant Manager (Grade-A) and Private Secretary (Grade-A). Further, direct recruitment n PK, J wP 590 2024 to the post of Class-lll have been conducted and quota has also been -) filled up, but, for no reason the promotional examination for promotes was not conducted, while filling up through another feeder category. Therefore, the action of the respondents in not conducting promotional test for the years 2Ol9 and 2O2O is gross discriminatory and arbitrary. It is further submitted that a fresh Memorandum of Settlement has been entered between the Union and the respondent Bank for the year 2O2l on 02.12.2021. Consequently, on 14. 12.2021 respondent No.2 has issued a Circular notifying the examination which was conducted on 30.01.2O22 for the panel year 2021. However, in the said notification, the vacancies arose in the years 2019 and 2O2O were not included. Therefore, the Union submitted a representation stating that vacancies of 2019 and 2O2O also be included in the present notification, but no action is taken thereon. karned counsel has further submitted that in the said examination, petitioners have secured more than the minimum quali$,ing marks and in the normal course they would have been promoted to class-Ill posts, had the vacancies that arose in ttre years 2Ol9 arrd 2O2O been included. But, contrary to the Settlement entered earlier, the said vacancies have not been included nor indicated in tte 2O2l notification, as a result of which, ttre petitioners are denied their legitimate promotion. Further, the request of the petitioners for inclusion of the vacancies was rejected vide letter d,ated, 02.04.2022 j PK, J wP_590_2024 and the same is iilegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of -4 the Constitution of India. l.earned counsel further contended that aggrieved by the similar rejection orders denying inclusion of vacancies of the years 2Ol9 ard 2020, severai writ petitions were filed in High Courts across the country including High Court of Madhya Pradesh and High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Kanpur) wherein interim orders were granted in favour of the petitioners therein. Therefore, the impugned action of the respondents in not including the vacancies for the years 2019 and 2O2O to the post of Assistant in Class-III, is wholly illegai and arbitrary. It is well settled that the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right and it is failure on the part of the respondents to conduct an examination for the years 2019 and 2O2O while conducting direct recruitment as weil as examination for other categories, which is wholiy discriminatory and arbitrary. lrarned counsel has relied on the foiiowing judgments in support of his contentions: Mohan Mahto o. Central Coal Field Ltd.,I; i0 Life Insurance Corporation of India o. D.J, Baha sTz; and iii) AIR India Ltd., a. Vishal Capoots. 4) Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 6, while admitting the execution of Memorandum of Settlement TMANU Isc/7934 /2007 2 (1981) 1 SCC 315 3 [2005) 13 SCC 42 PK, J wP 590 2024 (MOS), dated 29.O4.2014, signed by respondent-Bank with All India 5 Reserve Bank Workers Federation (in short 'FederationJ on Scheme of Promotion of Class-lV employees, has stated that the said MOS provides for conducting of promotional examination for 5 years i.e. frqm panel year 2014 to panel year 2018, after which, the scheme of promotion has to be reviewed by mutual consent. Therefore, after informal consultation with members of the Federation, draft MOS was prepared and sent to the Federation vide letter dated 21.06.2O19, in turn, the Federation vide its letter dated 27.09.2019 conveyed their agreement to the draft MOS and requested the Bank to call for a formal meeting of office bearers of Federation to finalize the MOS. After consultation thereof, draft MOS was revised, modilied and sent to Federation on 05. 1 l.20l9 . As there was no response, a reminder was sent on 27 .Ol .2021 . The Federation vide its letter dated 2O.O7.2021 informed the Bank that they are agreeable for conducting of promotional test for ClasslV employees at the earliest.

4.1) Subsequently, the MOS dated 02.12.2021 was entered between the Bank and Federation on the scheme of promotion of Class-IV employees to the post of Assistant in Class-lll wherein it is clearly mentioned that next promotion of Class-IV employees to Class-III posts will be taken up for the calendar year 2021. Further, the MOS dated O2.12.2O2 I was effective for the specilic panel years and not each year and para 6 of MOS dated 29.04.2014 and O2.12.2O2L PK, J wP 59C 2024 clearly prescribes Effect of the Scheme'. Further, both the MOS did -6 not stipulate the vacancies for promotion of Class-IV employees to Class-III for the years 2019 and, 2O2O. The said panel years are neither covered in any of the MOS nor such provision was made in the said MOS to the effect that the number of vacancies subject to maximum 3%o of the actual working strength of Ciass-lll employees at the office will continue to be allotted for the years of non- existence/cession of MOS and no MOS were in existence for the panel years 2019 and 2O2O. Learned Standing Counsel has further contended that at para S(ii) of the said MOS, it was clearly stated that the promotions will be only to the extent of Ofhce-wise vacancies notified to be filled strictly in order of merit for that Office. Without any challenge to the provisions of MOS dated 29 .O4.2O14 or

02.12.2021, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. Further, the petitioners themselves have participated in the recent promotion process i.e. departmental examination for promotion of Class-IV to the post of Assistant in Class-lll, which was notified on 3O. i0.2023 and examination held on LO.12.2O23. Therefore, the petitioners having been participated in the said promotion process without any protest, are estopped from seeking any relief in the nature of restraining the hlling up of vacalcies under the very same process.

4.21 Furtlrer, in terms of MOS dated 02.12.2021, a circular dated

14.12.2021, was issued for conducting promotion examination for the -7 PK, J wP 590 2024 year 2O2l and the examination was also conducted on 3O.O1.2O22 wherein 17 class-IV employees, including the petitioners herein, have appeared from Hyderabad office as against 3 vacancies and the said vacancies were filled up as per merit by the persons who got higher merit in the written examination than the petitioners herein. Thereafter, the promotional examination for the year 2O23 was also held on 3O.1O.2O23 wherein also the petitioners herein have participated, but they, excluding petitioner No.2, could not succeed. Therefore, the present petitioners could not be promoted owing to lack of performance in promotional examination.

4.3) Learned Standing Counsel has strenuously contended that by way of the present writ petition, the writ petitioners are indulging in approbate and reprobate at the same time by participating in promotional examination as per the MOS d,ated 02.12.2021 antl pressing the claims impermissible thereunder. It is further submitted that in terms of MOS dated 2l.Og.2OI4 Ex_Seryicemen including the petitioners are eiigible to appear for the promotional examination after 5 years of regr-rlar service whereas the other Class_IV employees are eligible only after ten years (in case of Degree holders) and 15 years (in case of non-graduates) in the Bank, in terms of MoS dated 29.04.2014. Further, MOS dated 2T.O4.2OI4 provides for conducting of promotional examination only from the panel years 2014 to 201g and there is no provision fo. coidicting examination beyond the said l PK, J wP 590_2024 period and a separate MOS is required to be entered lor further -8 r conduct of the promotional examination for CIass-IV employees for the panel years 2019 and 2O2O. Further, there is no provision in any of the MOS to carry forward the promotional vacancies to the next panel years.

4.4) It is further contended that in Manish Kumar Shahi u. State of Bihafi, the Honble Supreme Court has held that having participated in a selection process without any protest, it would not be open to an unsuccessful candidate to challenge the selection criteria subsequently. Further, the reliance placed by the learned counsel on the interim order dated 12.12.2023 passed by the Allahabad High Court in W.P.No.8566 of 2022 is misplaced and not applicabie to the facts of the present case since the petitioners therein have not participated in the promotion exercise conducted on

10.12.2023. Learned Standing Counsei has further contended that the respondent Bank has issued a recruitment notification dated

13.09.2023 for Iilling up of Assistants in Class-lll by way of direct recruitment, and inspite of preparing a merit list, it could not proceed further due to the interim order passed by this Court on 23.01.2024. Hence, it is prayed this Court to dismiss the writ petition in the 4 (2OlO) t2 SCC 576 Y PK, J wP_590 2024 interest ofjustice. Reliance has also been placed on Anupal Singh u. 9 State of Uttar Pradeshs. 5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective parties 6) A perusal of the record discloses that admittedly MOS dated

29.04.2014 was in force for a period of five years i.e. for the panel years 2014 to 2018. According to the respondents, there was no provision in MOS dated 29.O4.2OI4 to conduct promotional examination beyond the stipulated period. Further in any of the MOS dated 29.04.2014 and 02.12.2021 there is no provision to carry forward the promotiona-l vacancies to the next panel years in the absence of existence of any MOS and the petitioners failed to place any rebuttal material before this Court. 7) Further, it is also an admitted fact that the present petitioners have participated in the promotional examination for the panel year 2O2l held on 3O.O1.2O22 and for the panel year 2023 held on 10.12.2023, which were conducted pursuant to MOS dated

02.12.2021, and remained unsuccessful, except petitioner No.2, who was successful in the promotional examination for the panel year 2023 and withdrawn the writ petition on 2L.O2.2O24. Therefore, the present writ petitioners having participated in the promotional s (2o2ol 2 scc 173 I PK, J wP 590 2024 examination without any protest are estopped from seeking the - t0- f- present relief. S) In this context, it is apt to observe that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anupal Singh's case (referred supra) has held as under: "55. Having participated in the interview, the private respondents cannot challenge the Oflice Memorandum d'ated 12-10-2014 and the selection. On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that after the revised Notification dated l2-lO-2O14, the private respondents participated in the interview without protest and only after the result was announced and finding that they were not selected, the private respondents chose to challenge the revised Notiiication dated 12-1O- 2Ol4 and the private respondents are estopped from challenging the selection process. It is a settled law that a person having consciously participated in the interview cannot turn around and challenge the selection process." 9) It is also to be noted that the petitioners failed to chalienge the MoSdated2g.o4.2o|4aswellasdatedo2.|2.2o2ltotheextentthey stipulate the 'Effect of the Scheme'. For better adjudication, they are extracted hereunder: Para 6 of MOS dated 29.04.2014 states "The Scherne as agreed upon in this settlement will be effective from the palel year 2Cl4 ar,d will be in force for next five years i'e. Li1l the panel year 2018 after which the scheme will be reviewed by mutual consent"- Para 6 of MOS dated 02.12.2027 states 'The Scheme as agreed upon in this Settlement will be effective from the panel year 2O2l and will be in force for next five years i-e. till the year 2026 alter whLich, - rr - the scheme will be reviewed by mutual consent. Accordingly, next examination will be conducted for the cdendar yeat 2021." wp_sso332:4 10) The above portions of MOS d,ated 29.04.2014 and 02.12.2021 clearly stipulate the panel years covered thereunder and there is no whisper of the panel years 2019 and.2O2O. Therefore, the petitioners cannot seek the present relief without challenging the above said MOS. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition. 11) Coming to the judgments relied by the petitioners, they are disting,ishable on facts on the ground that in this writ petition the petitioners have not chalenged the Mos and therefore the said judgments are of no avail to the petitioners. 12) For the afore-mentioned reasons, the present Writ petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPYII SD/-T. TIR ASSISTANT UMALA DEVI REGISTRAR / ./ u ECTION OFFICER : ilidl,fl S][#,II'-ttl"r?3=tffiHrl G .,ERNME Nr gt? M$ :Xy'tsiFg BE SS)' : #iFF iri 19 N S E L R E P R ES E N TT NG M/s To SA BS I I R 1l1C S 14 /c c. o 2 / IAN ?w5 .i c: I { n4 r Ec H o HIGH COURT DATE D: 1 0 101 12025 ORDER WP.No.590 of 2024 DISMISSING THE W.P WTHOUT COSTS. @ \\r