1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11072 OF 2017

[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 9673 OF 2017 ] SYED MOHAMMAD                                Appellant (s)

                               VERSUS UNION OF INDIA  & ORS.                       Respondent(s)

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11073 OF 2017

[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 12376 OF 2017 ] J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants are before this Court, aggrieved by the Judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.  The issue pertains to the selection for promotion from the post of Clerk to that of Officer.

3. The process of selection, as prescribed, reads as follows :-

“Selection process for promotees The  selection  shall  be  on  the

basis  of  performance  in  the  written test,  interview  and  five  years Performance Appraisal Reports as per the division of marks given below:- (A) Written test 70  Marks    

(B) Interview 20 Marks

2

(C) Performance Appraisal Report 10 Marks Total Marks 100  Marks”

4. It is also a condition that “there shall be no minimum qualifying marks in the interview.”  Still further, it is stipulated that “promotions shall be made  on  the  basis  of  seniority-cum-merit”.   The appellant-candidate  before  this  Court  did  not participate  in the  interview.  However, it  is his stand  that  even  without  participating  in  the interview,  in  case  he  had  secured  the  sufficient marks in the other two counts i.e. written test and performance appraisal, he is entitled to be promoted.

5. The High Court took the view that the interview was  one  of  the  essential  procedures  for  being included in the select list and, therefore, having not  participated  in  the  interview,  the appellant-candidate was not liable to be selected and appointed.   Thus  aggrieved,  the  Bank  and  the candidate concerned are before this Court.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has  submitted  that  any  candidate  who  has  not participated in the interview, is not eligible to be selected  and  appointed  since  the  interview  is  the

3

only  method  by  which  the  person's  capability  is assessed for the purpose of suitability for promotion to the post of Officer.

7. We find it difficult to appreciate the contention in  the  background  of  the  rules,  which  we  have extracted above.  The selection process is by way of a written test, interview and performance appraisal of  the  previous  years.   The  total  marks  are  100. There is also a further significant stipulation that there  are  no  minimum  qualifying  marks  for  the interview.   Once  no  marks  are  prescribed  as qualifying marks in the interview for the purpose of selection,  whether  a  candidate  participates  in  the interview  or  not  is  of  no  relevance,  since  even assuming, he had been granted zero marks in case he had otherwise obtained better marks in the written examination  and  the  performance  appraisal,  he  is eligible to be promoted since the selection is based on  seniority-cum-merit  and  since  there  is  also  no provision  for  disqualifying  an  incumbent  in  the interview and since there is performance appraisal.   

8. The  principle  governing  selection  based  on seniority-cum-merit is that once the candidates are found  to  possess  the  minimum  required  merit,  the senior  among  them  would  get  the  promotion.   The

4

learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits that the appellant-candidate and the respondent-candidate had secured equal marks in the selection, though the appellant-candidate  had  not  participated  in  the interview.   But  since  the  appellant-candidate  was senior  to  the  respondent-candidate,  based  on  the principle  of  seniority-cum-merit,  the appellant-candidate  had  to  be  appointed  and  that alone was done by the Bank.  We find nothing wrong in the  procedure  adopted  in  the  selection  in  the peculiar factual and rule position of the Bank.   

9. The Judgment under appeal is, hence, set aside. The appeals are allowed.          

No costs.   .......................J.

             [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [ R. BANUMATHI ]  

New Delhi; August 29, 2017.

5

ITEM NO.15               COURT NO.5               SECTION XI                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)  No(s).  9673/2017

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated  28-11-2016 in  SA  No.  826/2007  passed  by  the  High  Court  Of  Judicature  At Allahabad) SYED MOHAMMAD                                      Petitioner(s)                                 VERSUS UNION OF INDIA  & ORS.                             Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C) No. 12376/2017 (XI) Date : 29-08-2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM :  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH          HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, Adv.  

Mr. Satish Vig, AOR Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.  Mr. Gaurav Kumar Singh, Adv.  Mr. Rakesh Chaurasiya, Adv. Mr. Bhumit Solanki, Adv.  For M/s Mitter & Mitter Co.

                   For Respondent(s) Mr. Salar M. Khan, Adv.  

Mr. Sridevi Panikkar, Adv.  Ms. Rita Dey, Adv.  

                   M/s. Ap & J Chambers                                          

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                              O R D E R

Leave granted.  The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed non-reportable

Judgment.

6

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA)                            (RENU DIWAN)   COURT MASTER                              ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)