http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4840 of 2007

PETITIONER: Arjun Singh Rathore & Ors

RESPONDENT: B.N.Chaturvedi & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/10/2007

BENCH: S.B.SINHA & HARJIT SINGH BEDI

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 21508/2005) HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J.

1.      Leave granted.       2.      This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the  Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dated 18th August  2005 setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge  thereby allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents and  further directing that promotion to the post of Scale-II Officers be  held as per the Rules of 1998.  The facts leading to the filing of the  appeal are as under: 3.      On 28th September 1988 the Department of Economic Affairs  (Banking Division), Ministry of Finance, Government of India,  after consultation with the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural  Development and in exercise of the powers conferred by Section  29 of the Regional Rural Banks Act 1976 notified the Regional  Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and others  Employees) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter called the \023Rules of 1988\024)  which came into force w.e.f. 28th September 1988.  The second  Schedule of these rules provided for the mode of appointment to  different categories of officers.  The appellants herein fell in  category No.6 whereas category No.7 dealt with the appointment  of Area Managers or Senior Managers by promotion of officers  from category No.6 and inter-alia provided that all the vacancies  were to be filled in by promotion from qualified and eligible  persons working in the bank and that the mode of selection would  be interview and assessment of performance reports for the  preceding three years period.  The Board of Directors of the  respondent Kshetriya Gramin-Bank adopted the Rules in a meeting  held on 26th September 1988.  It is the case of the appellants that  by the first of April 1999, 15 posts in all had become available for  promotion under category 7 as no appointments had, in fact, been  made for several years.  While the vacancies still existed the  Regional Rural Bank (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and  other employees) Rules 1998 (hereinafter called the \023Rules of  1998\024) were framed and published in the Official Gazette on 29th  July 1998.  The Board of Directors of the Kshetriya Bank adopted  these rules and issued a Circular dated 15th May 1999 conveying  the information that the Rules of 1988 had been superseded and  that henceforth the Rules of 1998 alone would form the basis for  promotion etc.  The Bank of Baroda which was the sponsoring  Bank under the Regional Rural Banks Act of 1976 thereafter made  an enquiry from the concerned quarters and on 15th October 1999  addressed a letter to the Regional Rural Banks that in view of the  judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajathan vs.  R.Dayal & Ors.,  \023any post which had fallen vacant prior to the  amendment of the Rules would be governed by the original rules

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

and not by the amended rules\024 and in order to make matters more  explicit repeated the directive by reiterating that the \023posts which  fell vacant prior to the publication of the amended rules i.e. Rules  1998 would be governed by the Old Promotion Rules and not by  the amended rules.\024  A copy of the letter dated 15th October 1999  has been appended as Annexure P-1 to the appeal.    4.      The respondent, Kshetriya-Bank thereupon issued a circular  dated 13th June 2000 directing that all the vacancies which were  available as on 31st March 1998 be filled in under the Rules of  1988.   15 persons, the appellants herein, were thereafter  interviewed on 18th September 2000  and were found fit for  promotion and the said list was also approved by the Board of  Directors and all 15 appellants were accordingly promoted  to  Scale-II under order dated 18th September 2000.  Respondent Nos.  1 to 5 herein however preferred a joint Writ Petition No.  3641/2000 in the High Court which was dismissed by the learned  Single Judge on 25th September 2002 vide judgment appended as  Annexure P-2.  An appeal was thereafter taken to a Division Bench  which reversed the order of the Single Judge thus allowing the  Writ Petition and directing that the promotions and the circulars  dated 13th June 2000 and 18th September 2000 respectively be  quashed and further directing the  Kshetriya Bank to make the  promotions of Scale-II Officers as per the Rules of 1998.  It is in  this circumstance that the present special leave petition has been  filed. 5.      Notice was issued and all the respondents have been served.   However, Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 alone have put in appearance  and a reply has been filed by the Chairman of the respondent- Bank.  We have accordingly heard the learned counsel who have  appeared before us.                                                                       6.     Mr. Calla, the learned senior counsel for appellants has  argued that the matter was fully covered by the judgment of this  Court in State of Rajasthan vs. R.Dayal  1997(10)SCC 419  wherein it had been held that the vacancies to be filled by  promotion were to be filed under the rules which were in operation  on the date when the vacancies had occurred.   Relying on and  referring to an earlier judgment in the case of Y.V.Rangaiah  vs.   J.Sreenivasa Rao (1983) 3 SCC 284 it was opined as under:         \023This Court has specifically laid (sic) that  the vacancies which occurred prior to the  amendment of the Rules would be governed by  the original Rules and not by the amended  Rules.  Accordingly, this Court had held that the  posts which fell vacant prior to the amendment  of the Rules would be governed by the original  Rules and not the amended Rules.  As a  necessary corollary, the vacancies that arose  subsequent to the amendment of the Rules are  required to be filled in in accordance with the  law existing as on the date when the vacancies  arose.\024

7.       The above legal position has not been seriously disputed by  the learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 &7.  We are therefore of  the opinion that the vacancies which had occurred prior to the  enforcement of the Rules of 1998 had to be filled in under the  Rules of 1988 and as per the procedure laid down therein.  We are  therefore of the opinion that the judgment of the learned Single  Judge needs to be restored.  We order accordingly.                       8.      There is another aspect of the matter which needs to be taken  care of.  It has been brought to our notice during the course of  hearing that pursuant to the order of Division  Bench the exercise  for promotion under the Rules of 1998 had been carried out and  that all 15 original respondents (present appellants)  had appeared

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

in the written examination and been declared successful but the  result of 14 had been declared on 22nd November 2005 whereas the  result of one, Ram Narayan Meena appellant No.3 before us, had  been kept in a sealed envelop as a disciplinary enquiry was  pending against him.  It has however been pointed out that Ram  Narayan Meena had been subjected to a charge-sheet dated  09.11.2005 on the basis of a complaint dated 16th June 2005, that is  long after the promotions had been made under the Rules of 1988,  and as such he too should be given the benefit of this judgment in  so far as the promotion was concerned though subject to the  outcome of the proceedings against him.  We find merit in this plea  as well.  It needs to be highlighted that the promotion under the  Rules of 1988 had been made way back in September 2000 i.e.  long before the complaint had been made against Ram Narayan  Meena.  We are therefore of the opinion that he too should be  given the benefit of this judgment subject to the outcome of the  disciplinary proceedings.  We accordingly allow the appeal in the  above terms.  There will be no order as to costs.