Supreme Court Allows Appeals in Regional Rural Bank Promotion Dispute — Prescribing Minimum Qualifying Marks for Interview and Performance Appraisal Not Violative of Seniority-cum-Merit Principle. The Court held that administrative instructions fixing a benchmark of 12 marks each for interview and performance appraisal are permissible under the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1998, and do not defeat the seniority-cum-merit principle.

Civil appeals against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur in writ appeals concerning promotion to the post of Junior Management Scale II in Mahakoshal Kshetriya Bank.

The appellants (promoted officers) sought to set aside the High Court's direction for a fresh promotion exercise and to uphold the promotion list dated 09.10.2004.

The appellants were aggrieved by the High Court's order directing a fresh promotion exercise, which they argued was based on an erroneous interpretation of the seniority-cum-merit principle.

The learned Single Judge quashed the promotion list and directed preparation of a fresh list prescribing minimum cut-off marks out of 100. The Division Bench modified this, directing the bank to conduct a fresh promotion exercise and prescribe minimum necessary cut-off marks.

Whether prescribing minimum qualifying marks for interview and performance appraisal reports, beyond the minimum marks prescribed in the rules for written test, is permissible under the principle of seniority-cum-merit for promotion. Whether the High Court erred in ordering a fresh selection process when the selection was not vitiated.

Appellants argued that prescription of benchmark merit criterion based on aggregate performance is permissible and does not violate seniority-cum-merit, relying on Chairman, Rushikulya Gramya Bank v. Bisawamber Patro and Rajendra Kumar Srivastava v. Samyut Kshetriya Gramin Bank. Appellants further argued that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering a fresh selection process when the selection was not vitiated.

Prescribing minimum qualifying marks for interview and performance appraisal reports, in addition to the minimum marks prescribed in the rules for written test, is permissible under the principle of seniority-cum-merit. Such prescription ensures minimum merit for the higher post and does not defeat the rule of seniority-cum-merit, as long as seniority is given weight among those who meet the minimum merit threshold. Administrative instructions fixing such benchmarks are valid and do not alter the rules.

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. 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.

The dispute originated from a promotion list dated 09.10.2004 issued by Mahakoshal Kshetriya Bank. Senior officers filed writ petitions before the High Court challenging the list. The learned Single Judge quashed the list and directed preparation of a fresh list prescribing minimum cut-off marks out of 100. The bank and promoted officers appealed to the Division Bench, which dismissed the appeals but modified the direction, ordering a fresh promotion exercise. The promoted officers then appealed to the Supreme Court.

• Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976: Section 29
• Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1998: Third Schedule