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

PETITIONER: SHER SINGH & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SURINDER KUMAR & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       21/01/1998

BENCH: S. SAGHIR AHMAD, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T S.SAGHIR AHMAD, J.      The appellants and respondents 1 to 7 are the employees of the Himachal Gramin Bank (for short, ’the Bank’). In May- June , 1986, 30 posts of Field Supervisors, 15 of which were to be  filled up by promotion from amongst the Clerks and 15 by direct recruitment, became available. In February 1987, a selection was  held,  in  which  15  persons  including  the present appellants  were selected  and promoted to the posts of Field  Supervisors.  This  selection  was  challenged  by respondents 1  to 7  by a Writ Petition in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh,  which was  allowed by the Single Judge on 10th  December,  1990.  This  decision  was  upheld  by  the Division Bench on 14th January, 1994.      All persons  including  the  present  appellants  filed S.L.P. No.  15559/1994 in  this Court,  and the Court by its Order dated  10th  November,  1994  granted  leave  only  to appellants 10  to 15,  while leave was refused to appellants No. 1 to 9. 2.   We have  heard learned  counsel of  the parties, except the counsel for the Bank, who did not appear. 3.   It is  not  disputed  that  the  criterion  for  making promotion from the post of Clerk to that of Field Supervisor was seniority-cum-merit.  On a  consideration of  the  facts placed before  the High  Court, the Single Judge as also the Division Bench  came to  the conclusion  that, while  making selection, the  Bank  did  not  follow  this  criterion  and instead, it  made  promotion  on  the  basis  of  merit-cum- seniority which vitiated the selection. 4.   It may  be pointed  out that, before the learned Single Judge as  also before the Division Bench, the Bank, in spite of directions  of the  Court, did  not produce  the original records relating  to the  selection in question. The learned Single Judge  in its  judgment has, in this regard, observed as under:-      "  Before  concluding  the  present      case I  must place  on record  that      despite  specific  direction  dated      11.10.1990 to the H.P. Gramin Bank,      the proceedings of the Departmental

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

    Promotion Committee were not placed      before  this   Court.  The  learned      counsel  for  the  Bank,  Sh.  M.L.      Sharma   took    time   twice    on      19.10.1990   and   26.10.1990,   to      comply with  the directions  of the      Court but  failed.   Ultimately, on      1.11.1990, he  showed his inability      to   show   to   this   Court   the      proceedings  of   the  Departmental      Promotion Committee, as the General      Manager of the H.P. Gramin Bank did      not  hand  over  the  same  to  him      despite assurances.  In these  that      the respondent-bank  has failed  to      show to  this  Court  that  it  has      followed a  fair and just method of      selection for promotion to the post      of Field  Supervisor. Such  a  non-      cooperating attitude  of  a  public      body which  is  expected  to  be  a      model employer,  militates  against      the fair adjudication of the issues      raised  before  the  Court.  It  is      advisable  a  litigant  party,  and      more so,  if the  litigant party is      the Government or a Public Body, to      avoid  any   secrecy  and  put  its      record beyond the slightest pale of      controversy to  enable the Court to      decide the points in issue." 5.   Since the  Bank had adopted the criteria of "merit-cum- seniority" and not "seniority-cum-merit" in making selection in question and did not produce the original records despite several directions  and opportunities,  the High  Court  was right in  holding that  the entire  selection was  vitiated. There is  not infirmity  in the judgments passed by the High Court and the same are upheld. 6.   The operative  part  of  the  judgment  passed  by  the learned Single Judge is quoted below:-      " In  the result,  the  petitioners      succeed on the first point that the      promotion of  respondent Nos. 2 and      16   to    the   posts   of   Field      Supervisors is  bad for  the reason      that   the    H.P.   Gramin    Bank      arbitrarily followed  the criterion      of selection  ’merit-cum-seniority’      instead  of   ’seniority-cum-merit’      applicable to  the post  .  As  the      petitioners succeed  on  the  first      point, I need not decide the second      point  raised   by  them  that  the      promotions  were  bad  because  the      constitution  of  the  Departmental      Promotion Committee  was  defective      due to  the  participation  of  the      unauthorised person. Therefore, the      promotion of  respondent Nos.  2 to      16 to the posts of Field Supervisor      made on  26.6.1987 in  pursuance to      he   selection    made    by    the      Departmental promotion Committee on      6.2.1987 is set aside. The Himachal      Pradesh Gramin  Bank is directed to

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

    make fresh  promotion to  the posts      of Field  Supervisor in  accordance      with law". 7.   We  are   informed  that,   in  view   of  the  present litigation, the  Bank has not made any promotion to the post of Field  supervisors so  far.  The  Bank  cannot,  by  this attitude, stagnate  its  employees.  We,  therefore,  direct while dismissing the appeal that the Bank shall hold a fresh selection in  accordance with  the directions  issued by the High Court within 5 months from today. 8.   The appellants,  who were  promoted in  1987  and  were amongst the 15 persons originally selected have been working on these  posts under  the interim  orders of this court but since the  appeal is being dismissed, the period of 11 years for  which   they  were   working  on  the  posts  of  Field Supervisors shall not be counted towards their seniority and if the  respondents along with appellants or any of them are selected and promoted to the post of Field Supervisor in the fresh selection, they will retain their original seniority. 9.   The appeal is disposed of in the manner indicated above without any order as to costs.