2019 INSC 0362
                           REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3603­3607  OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.7010­7014/2009)
Shriram Tomar and another Etc. …Appellants
Versus
Praveen Kumar Jaggi and others …Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3608  OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.6075/2009)
Dev Narain Shukla and others ..Appellants
Versus
Praveen Kumar Jaggi and others ..Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
Leave granted.
2. As   common   question   of   law   and   facts   arise   in   this
group   of   appeals,   and   as   such   they   arise   out   of   the   impugned
1

common judgment and order passed by the High Court, all these
appeals   are   being   decided   and   disposed   of   by   this   common
judgment and order.
2.1 All   these   appeals   arise   out   of   the   impugned   common
judgment   passed   by   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   of
Judicature at Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh) passed in Writ Appeal
Nos.   1510/2007,   1509/2007,   1508/2007,   1511/2007   and
1535/2007,   by   which   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court
dismissed   the   said   appeals,   however,   while   dismissing   the   said
appeals,   modified   the   order   passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge
and   directed   that   instead   of   preparing   a   fresh   select   list,   the
establishment   would   conduct     the   fresh   exercise   for   promotion,
and   further   directed   that   the   establishment   would   be   obliged   to
prescribe  minimum  necessary   cut off  merit marks out  of 100 so
that the rule of seniority­cum­merit is made applicable.
3. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are
as under:
The dispute is with respect to promotion to the post of
Junior Management Scale II in the Mahakoshal Kshetriya Bank.
That   in   exercise   of   powers   conferred   under   Section   29   of   the
Regional   Rural   Banks   Act,   1976,   the   Central   Government,   in
2

consultation with National Bank and the Sponsor Bank, i.e., the
UCO   Bank,   formulated   the   Rules   called   Regional   Rural   Banks
(Appointment   and   Promotion   of   Officers   and   other   Employees)
Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’).  That the said
Rules were notified in the gazette on 29.07.1998.  Third Schedule
of the aforesaid Rules, inter alia, provides for appointment of two
different   categories   of   officers.   It   also   provides   for   eligibility   as
well as mode of  selection  in respect thereto.   As regards Scale II
officers,   it   was   specifically   provided   that   the   source   of
appointment   shall   be   100%   by   promotion   and   the   criterion   for
promotion   shall   be   on   the   basis   of   seniority­cum­merit.     That
mode   of   selection   was   that   the   candidate   shall   be   selected   by   a
committee   on   the   basis   of   written   test,   interview   and   the
assessment   of   ‘performance   appraisal   reports’   for   the   preceding
five   years   as   officer   in   Scale   I/Field   Supervisor.     The   division   of
marks was as follows:
Written Test 60 marks
Interview 20 marks
Performance appraisal                 20 marks
 Total                                                   100 marks
3

3.1 As  regards written   test,  it  provided  that  the  candidate
shall   be   required   to   appear   for   written   test   comprising   of   two
parts, viz., Part ‘A’ and Part ‘B’.  The 60 marks allotted to written
test were further divided as :
Part ‘A’ 30 marks
Part ‘B’ 30 marks
3.2 As   per   the   aforesaid   rules,   a   list   of   only   those
candidates who secure minimum 40% of marks in each part (Part
‘A’ & Part ‘B’) shall be prepared and shall be called for interview.
As   regards   interview   and   ‘performance   appraisal   reports’   for
preceding   five   years’   service,   under   the   rules,   no   minimum
qualifying marks were provided.
3.3 The   respondent­bank   for   the   purpose   of   promotion
from   Scale   I   to   Scale   II   issued   a   memo   dated   30.03.2004   and
informed all the Branch Managers and all the departments of the
Head   Office   to   submit   ‘performance   appraisal   reports’   of
preceding   five   years’   of   Scale   I   officers.     The   bank   also   issued
guidelines   in   consonance   with   the   Rules,   vide   guidelines   dated
12.04.2004.
3.4 For   promotion   of   Scale   I   officers   to   the   available   16
posts   of   Scale   II,   the   Bank   called   64   candidates/officers   in   the
4

ratio of 1:4.   The written test was conducted on 16.04.2004 and
32   candidates   out   of   64   were   declared   qualified   in   the   written
test, as it was found that they secured more than 40% marks in
the   written   examination.     That   thereafter,   the   appellants   along
with   other   eligible   candidates   (32   in   numbers)   appeared   in   the
interview   conducted   on   18/19.09.2004.     That   vide   memo   dated
09.10.2004,   the   bank   published   the   results   of   successful
officers/candidates   shown   to   have   been   promoted   to   Scale   II
posts.     That   the   appellants   herein   who   were   also   placed   in   the
seniority   list   came   to   be   promoted,   by   virtue   of   their   seniority,
having   secured   more   than   minimum   marks   in   the   written   test
and   having   passed   the   interview   and   performance   appraisals.
However,   it   appears   that   three   persons,   namely,   Sunil   Kumar
Gupta,   Gopal   Singh   Raj   and   Rajesh   Kumar   Jain   (respondents
herein),   though   much   junior   in   the   seniority   list   of   Scale   I
officers, were also included in the list of promoted officers, issued
vide   memo   dated   9.10.2004   and   three   senior   persons   were
ignored, namely, Anil Kumar Singh, K.C. Soni and N.K. Sharma.
Therefore,   the   aforesaid   three   persons,   namely,   Anil   Kumar
Singh,   K.C.   Soni   and   N.K.   Sharma   and   one   another,   namely,
Praveen   K.   Jaggi   filed   Writ   Petition   Nos.   12127/2004,
5

12125/2004,   12126/2004   and   11005/2004   challenging   the
order   dated   09.10.2004   whereby   the   aforesaid   three   persons,
namely, Sunil Kumar Gupta, Gopal Singh Raj and Rajesh Kumar
Jain   were   placed   below   Anil   Kumar   Singh,   K.C.   Soni   and   N.K.
Sharma  in   the  seniority   list.    Before  the  learned  single  Judge, it
was   the   case   on   behalf   of   the   original   writ   petitioners   that
promotions   to   the   post   of   Scale   II   were   solely   on   the   basis   of
seniority­cum­merit   and   the   rules   provide   that   only   those
candidates   who   secure   minimum   40%   marks   in   the   written   test
shall   be   called   for   interview   and   there   being   no   minimum
qualifying   marks  provided  so   far   as  marks   obtained   in  interview
and performance appraisal reports and therefore the original writ
petitioners being senior and they obtained more than 40% marks
in the written test, they ought to have been promoted to the post
of Scale II.
3.5 However, it was the case on behalf of the bank that as
per   the   administrative   instructions,   a   conscious   decision   was
taken   by   the   Selection   Committee   fixing   the   bench   mark   of
minimum   12   marks   to   be   secured   in   the   interview   as   well   as
performance   appraisals   (each)   and   only   those   candidates   who
secured   in  all   24   marks  in   minimum   in  the   interview  as   well  as
6

the   performance   appraisals   were   required   to   be   considered   for
promotion   and   accordingly   those   candidates   who     secured   24
marks   minimum   in   the   interview   as   well   as   the   performance
appraisals were promoted.
4. The   learned   Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court   did   not
accept   the   same   and   observed   that   such   a   procedure   and
insisting   securing   24   marks   minimum   in   the   interview   and   the
performance   appraisals   was   not   provided   under   the   rules   and
therefore such a procedure was not permissible by administrative
instructions.     The   learned   Single   Judge   also   observed   that   the
aforesaid   criteria   would   violate   the   principle   of   seniority­cum­
merit and by such a criteria the principle of merit­cum­seniority
is   applied,   which   is   contrary   to   the   rules.     Therefore,   while
allowing   the   aforesaid   writ   petitions     and   quashing   and   setting
aside the list dated 9.10.2004, the learned Single Judge directed
to   prepare   a   fresh   selection   list   by   prescribing   the   minimum
necessary   cut off marks  out  of 100 so  that  the  rule  of seniority­
cum­merit   should   be   made   applicable   and   thereafter   may
proceed to prepare a fresh selection list and after prescribing the
necessary   minimum/cut   off   marks   the   persons   who   secure   the
minimum merit marks on the basis of their seniority shall be re­
7

arranged   and   accordingly   a   fresh   order   of   promotion   shall   be
passed by the bank.
5. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   common
impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   learned   Single
Judge   of   the   High   Court,   the   bank   as   well   as   the   appellants
herein   –   original   respondents   before   the   learned   single   Judge
preferred   writ   appeals   before   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High
Court.     By   common   impugned  judgment  and   order, the  Division
Bench has not only  dismissed the appeals, but while dismissing
the   appeals   has   set   aside   the   direction   issued   by   the   learned
Single   Judge   to   prepare   a   fresh   merit   list   and   has   further
directed   that   instead   of   preparing   a   fresh   selection   list   by
prescribing   the   minimum   necessary   cut   off   merit   marks   out   of
100, the bank shall conduct the fresh exercise for promotion. The
Division   Bench   also   observed   that  the   bank   would   be   obliged   to
prescribe  minimum  necessary   cut off  merit marks out  of 100 so
that the rule of seniority­cum­merit is made applicable.
6. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
common judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the
High   Court   dismissing   the   appeals   and   further   directing   to
conduct  the  fresh  exercise for   promotion,  the original  appellants
8

before   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   (those   who   were
promoted   pursuant   to   the   list/order   dated   09.10.2004)   have
preferred the present appeals.  
7. Shri R.S. Hegde, learned advocate appearing on behalf
of the appellants has vehemently submitted that in the facts and
circumstances   of   the   case,   the   Division   Bench   has   committed   a
grave   error   of   law   and   facts   while   quashing   the   entire   selection
test/list and ordering fresh exercise of promotion.
7.1 It   is   vehemently   submitted   by   the   learned   counsel
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellants   that   in   an   appeal   against
the   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge
ordering   fresh   exercise   of   promotion   and   when   it   was   nobody’s
case  before  the  Division   Bench  that  the  entire  selection  test  has
been vitiated and even that was not the observation made by the
learned   Single   Judge,   the   Division   Bench   could   not   have/ought
not to have set aside the entire selection test and/or not to have
ordered the fresh exercise of promotion.
7.2 It   is   further   submitted   by   the   learned   counsel
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellants   that   even   otherwise   both,
the   learned   Single   Judge   as   well   as   the   Division   Bench   have
materially   erred   in   observing   and   holding   that   by   prescribing
9

minimum 12 marks each to obtain in the oral interview as well as
performance   appraisal   reports,   the   principle   of   seniority­cum­
merit has been given go by.
7.3 Relying  upon   the   decision   of  this   Court  in   the   case  of
Chairman,   Rushikulya   Gramya   Bank   v.   Bisawamber   Patro
reported   in   (2013)   4   SCC   376 ,   it   is   submitted   by   the   learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that prescription of
benchmark   merit   criterion   based   on   aggregate   performance   in
written test, interview and performance appraisal report, besides
criteria   fixed   by   rules   for   grant   of   promotion   on   seniority­cum­
merit basis is permissible.
7.4 It   is   further   submitted   by   the   learned   counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants that in the case of  Rajendra
Kumar   Srivastava   v.   Samyut   Kshetriya   Gramin   Bank   reported   in
(2010)   1   SCC   335 ,   it   is   held   by   this   Court   that   prescribing
minimum   qualifying   marks   to   ascertain   the   minimum   merit
necessary for discharging the functions of the higher post, is not
violative of the concept of promotion by seniority­cum­merit.
7.5 Making   the   above   submissions   and   relying   upon   the
above two decisions of this Court, it is vehemently submitted by
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that in
10

the   present   case   both,   the   learned   Single   Judge   as   well   as   the
Division   Bench   erred  in  holding   that   prescribing   the  benchmark
to   obtain   12   marks   each   in   the   interview   and   performance
appraisal   reports   shall   be   defeating   the   principle   of   seniority­
cum­merit and as such the same is contrary to the law laid down
by this Court in the aforesaid two decisions.
7.6 It   is   further   submitted   by   the   learned   counsel
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellants   that   even   otherwise   it   is
required   to   be   noted   that   out   of   16   candidates   promoted,   13
candidates were as such above the original writ petitioners in the
seniority   list   and   the   objection   was   only   with   respect   to   three
persons who  were promoted and who  were junior  to  the  original
writ   petitioners.     It   is   submitted   that   therefore   at   the   most   the
learned   Single   Judge   could   have   set   aside   the   promotion   with
respect   to   only   those   three   promotes   who   were   junior   to   the
original writ petitioners.  However, learned advocate appearing on
behalf   of   the   appellants   herein   has   fairly   conceded   that   after   all
those   candidates   who   crossed   the   benchmark   even   in   interview
and the performance appraisal reports, thereafter the promotions
are to be made on the basis of seniority­cum­merit.
11

8. Learned advocate(s) appearing on behalf of the original
writ   petitioners   has   supported   the   order   passed   by   the   learned
Single   Judge   and   has/have   submitted   that     as   rightly   observed
by   the   learned   Single   Judge   and   to   that   extent   the   learned
Division   Bench   that   by   prescribing   the   benchmark   of   obtaining
12   marks   each   in   interview   and   performance   appraisal   reports,
the principal of seniority­cum­merit has been given go by.
8.1 It is submitted by  the learned advocate(s) on behalf of
the   original   writ   petitioners   that   as   such   in   the   advertisement,
the   only   eligibility   criteria   was   that   a   candidate   shall   have   to
obtain minimum 40% marks in the written test and no minimum
marks   were   prescribed   for   the   interview   and   the   performance
appraisal reports.
8.2 Relying  upon   the   decision   of  this   Court  in   the   case  of
B.V.Sivaiah v. K. Addanki Babu reported in (1998) 6 SCC 720,  and
another   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Sarva   U.P.Gramin
Bank   v.   Manoj   Kumar   Chak   reported   in   (2013)   6   SCC   287 ,   it   is
prayed to dismiss the present appeals.
9. We   have   heard   learned   counsel   for   the   respective
parties at length.
12

At   the   outset,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   the
promotion to the post of Junior Management Scale II is governed
by the principal of seniority­cum­merit.  It is true that as per the
rule   and   as   per   the   eligibility   criteria   mentioned   in   the   rule,   the
selection shall be on the basis of performance in the written test,
interview   and   performance   appraisal   reports   for   preceding   five
years.  As per the rules, 60 marks are allotted for written test, 20
marks   for   interview   and   20   marks   for   performance   appraisal
reports.     The   rule   further   provides   that   a   candidate   shall   be
required to appear in the written test comprising of two parts, viz,
Part ‘A’ and Part ‘B’.  60 marks allotted for written test are further
divided as under:
Part ‘A’ 30 marks
Part ‘B’ 30 marks
The rule further provides that a list of only those candidates who
secure minimum 40% marks in each part shall be prepared and
such candidates shall be called for interview.   It is true that the
rule do not provide any minimum qualifying marks for  interview
as well as performance appraisal.  However, at the same time, the
authority/Selection   Committee   took   a   conscious   decision   to   fix
the benchmark of having 12 marks each out of 20 marks each in
13

interview   as   well   as   performance   appraisal   reports.     Both   the
learned   Single   Judge   as   well   as   the   Division   Bench   found   fault
with   the   same   and   observed   and   held   that   further   fixing   the
qualifying   marks/benchmark   to   obtain   minimum   12   marks   in
the interview and the performance appraisal was not permissible
and that it would defeat the principle of seniority­cum­merit.  The
learned   Single   Judge   therefore   directed   to   prepare   the   fresh
promotion   list   by   prescribing   the   minimum   necessary   cut   off
merit   marks   out   of   100   so   that   the   rule   of   seniority­cum­merit
could be made applicable.
10. When the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single
Judge   was   challenged   before   the   Division   Bench,   the   Division
Bench, by the impugned judgment and order, not only dismissed
the   appeals,   but   also     set   aside   the   directions   issued   by   the
learned Single Judge to prepare a fresh select list by prescribing
the   minimum   necessary   cut   off   merit   marks   out   of   100   and
directed   the   establishment   to   conduct   the   fresh   exercise   for
promotion,   meaning   thereby,   the   Division   Bench   set   aside   the
entire   select   list.     In   the   absence   of   any   finding   by   the   learned
Single   Judge   that   the   select   list   was   vitiated   on   account   of   any
14

irregularity, the Division Bench was not justified in setting aside
the entire select list and ordering fresh exercise for promotion.
11. Now   so   far   as   the   finding   recorded   by   the   learned
Single   Judge   and   the   Division   Bench   that   further   fixing   the
qualifying   marks/benchmark   of   obtaining   minimum   12   marks
each   in   the   interview   and   the   performance   appraisal   reports   is
not   permissible   and   it   would   defeat   the   principle   of   seniority­
cum­merit   is   concerned,   as   observed   and   held   by   this   Court   in
the   case   of   Bisawamber   Patro   (supra) ,   the   same   is   permissible.
This   Court   was   considering   a   similar   situation   and   the   similar
rules   governing   promotions   from   Junior   Management   Scale   I   to
Middle   Management   Scale   II.     In   the   case   before   this   Court,   the
rule   was   similar   to   the   rule   in   the   present   case.     In   the   rule
before   this   Court,   also   there   was   no   minimum   qualifying   marks
for the interview provided.   However, the bank in addition to the
requirement   of   40%   qualifying   marks   in   the   written   test   further
fixed the qualifying marks of 60% for general candidates and 55%
marks for SC/ST candidates on the aggregate marks comprising
written   test,   performance   appraisal   reports   and   interview.     That
thereafter the names of all the candidates who got 60% or above
in the aggregate were put in the list for promotion strictly as per
15

their   seniority.     All   candidates   were   promoted   in   the   order   of
seniority, irrespective of anyone among them having got marks in
excess of 60% in the aggregate.   The candidates unsuccessful in
getting   promotion   challenged   the   select   list   on   the   similar
grounds   on   which   the   select   list   in   the   present   case   was
challenged.  The High Court allowed the writ petition holding that
prescription   of   the   benchmark   of   60%   marks   in   the   aggregate
was   in   violation   of   the   promotion   policy   and   the  rules  governing
the field.   Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition
and directed the bank to make fresh selection in accordance with
the   rules.     Reversing   the   order   passed   by   the   High   Court,   and
even   after   considering   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of
B.V.Sivaiah (supra) ( the judgment which has been relied upon by
the High Court), this Court observed that the procedure adopted
by the bank to further fixing the qualifying marks in the written
test,   performance   appraisal   reports   and   the   interview   has   not
violated the principle of seniority­cum­merit.  While observing so,
this Court took into consideration the observations made by this
Court in para 13 of another decision of this Court in the case of
Rajendra Kumar Srivastava (supra) .
16

12. Applying   the   law   laid   down   by   this   Court   in   the
aforesaid two decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are of
the   opinion   that   both,   the   learned   Single   Judge   as   well   as   the
Division Bench erred in holding that further fixing the qualifying
marks   to   be   obtained   in   the   interview   and   the   performance
appraisal reports, viz., 12 minimum marks each to be obtained in
interview and the performance appraisal reports and fixing such
a   benchmark   would   violate   the   principle   of   seniority­cum­merit.
As the promotion to the post of Junior Management Scale II shall
be   made   on   the   basis   of   seniority­cum­merit,   the   only
requirement   would   be   that   after   it   is   found   that   the   candidates
have possessed the minimum necessary merit, namely, minimum
40%     qualifying   marks   in   the   written   test   and   minimum   12
marks   each   out   of   20   marks   each   in   interview   and   the
performance   appraisal   reports   respectively,   thereafter   the
candidates are required to be promoted in the order of seniority,
irrespective of anyone among them having obtained more marks.
13. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
the present appeals are allowed.  The judgment and order passed
by   the   learned   Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court   as   well   as   the
impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench are
17

hereby quashed and set aside.  It is directed that the respondent­
authority   shall   prepare   a   fresh   select   list   for   promotion   to   the
post   of   Junior   Management   Scale   II   and   to   consider   the   case   of
those candidates who crossed the benchmark of having obtained
minimum   40%   qualifying   marks   in   the   written   test   and   having
obtained   minimum   12   marks   each   out   of   20   marks   each   for
interview   and   performance   appraisal   reports   respectively   and
those   candidates   be   promoted   in   the   order   of   seniority,
irrespective of anyone among them having obtained more marks.
14. The   present   appeals   are   allowed   to   the   aforesaid
extent.  No order as to costs.
……………………………….J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
NEW DELHI; ……………………………….J.
APRIL 09, 2019. [M.R. SHAH]
18