# Shukla and others v. Allahabad Kshetriya Gramin Bank and others

- **Citation:** (2000) 1 ILRA 42
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shukla-and-others-v-allahabad-kshetriya-gramin-bank-and-others-39435
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

42 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [2000
opposite party no. 3 to continue the suit or to claim as successor or
Mahant and decide the same along with the suit. It is expected that
the learned trial court shall decide the suit as early as possible.

With the aforesaid observation this writ petition is dismissed.
However, there will be no order as to cost.
$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 5$9, 6 '+$9$1 -
7+( +21·%/( 5$9, 6 '+$9$1 -
7+( +21·%/( $/2.( &+$.
7+( +21·%/( $/2.( &+$.5$%$57, -
5$%$57, -

6SHFLDO $SSHDO 1R RI

6DW\HQGUD 3UDWDS 6LQJK RWKHUV
«3HWLWLRQHUV
$SSHOODQWV
9HUVXV
$OODKDEDG .VKHWUL\D *UDPLQ %DQN RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHUV$SSHOODQWV 6KUL 6' .DXWLO\D
6KUL 6. 0HKURWUD
6KUL 6XGKLU &KDQGUD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6KUL 6DQWRVK .XPDU 6ULYDVWDYD
6KUL $QLO %KXVKDQ
6KUL $VKRN %KXVKDQ
6KUL 3. 0XNHUML
6KUL 31 .KDUH

&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH UHDGZLWK 5HJLRQDO 5XUDO %DQNV
$FW 3URPRWLRQ RI GHSDUWPHQWDO FDQGLGDWHV LH VWDII RI
$OODKDEDG .VKHWUL\D *UDPLQ %DQN IRU QRQVHOHFWLRQ SRVWV 6HOHFW
OLVW RI GHSDUWPHQWDO FDQGLGDWHV SXEOLVKHG RQ 2Q WKDW
GDWH FULWHULRQ ZDV VHQLRULW\ FXP PHULW$IWHU SURFHVV RI VKRUW OLVWLQJ
EXW EHIRUH ILQDOLVDWLRQ FULWHULD FKDQJHG E\ 5HJXODWRU\ $XWKRULW\ LH
1$%$5' WR PHULW FXP VXLWDELOLW\
+HOG
7KH FKDQJH ZKLFK ZDV FRQWHPSODWHG ZDV QRW WR DIIHFW WKH
FDQGLGDWHV
ZKR
KDG
EHHQ
VKRUWOLVWHG
DQG
ZHUH
XS
IRU
FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RQ WKH H[LVWLQJ FULWHULD ZKLFK VWRRG DV RQ GDWH ZKHQ
WKH OLVW KDG EHHQ SXEOLVKHG 7KH QRPLQHH RI WKH 5HVHUYH %DQN RI
,QGLD ZDV SRLQWLQJ RXW WKH HUURU RQ WKH YHU\ GDWH ZKHQ WKH
1 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
43
FKDQJHG FULWHULD ZDV EHLQJ DGRSWHG DQG WKH VHOHFWHG FDQGLGDWHV
ZHUH EHLQJ DSSURYHG RQ WKH FKDQJHG FULWHULD
&OHDUO\ WKHUH KDV EHHQ DQ HUURU LQ WKH WLPH DQG FKURQRORJ\ RI
PDNLQJ WKH FKDQJHG FULWHULD DSSOLFDEOH WR WKRVH FDQGLGDWHV ZKR
KDG EHHQ VKRUWOLVWHG RQ 7KH FKDQJHG FULWHULD ZDV QRW
WR DSSO\ WR WKHP SDUD
By the Court

1. This case relates to the process of promotion of certain
section of the staff of Allahabad Kshetriya Gramin Bank which has
been sponsored by the Bank of Baroda under the Regional Rural
Banks Act, 1976.

2. The Court has heard arguments against the judgment
appealed, in Writ Petition No. 13431 of 1988, Ramayan Prasad
Shukla and others v. Allahabad Kshetriya Gramin Bank and others.
It is the judgement dated 1st February, 1993. On behalf of the
appellants arguments were advanced by Mr. S.D. Kautilya Advocate.
On Behalf of some contesting respondents arguments were addressed
by Mr. Ashok Bhushan Advocate. On behalf of the respondent bank
Mr. P.K. Mukerji Advocate and on behalf of other respondents Mr.
P.N. Khare Advocate were present.

3. While arguments have been lengthy the point involved in
this appeal is very short.

4. The issue before the Court is not on what criteria is to be
adopted for considering the departmental candidates for picking up
promotions. The issue plainly is what is the date of implementation if
any change in the criterion takes place. Plainly, on a careful reading
of the judgment, all counsel present admit that this point was missed
in the judgment.

5. The issue: Departmental candidates were to be considered
for promotion. A select list of departmental candidates was published
on 14.04.1998. Since the matter related to departmental promotions
everyone is agreed that there was an obligation on the respondent
bank to send letters calling the candidates for interview. There is no
issue on record that on the date when the select list was published the
criterion for considering departmental candidates, all for nonselection posts, was seniority-cum-merit. Thus, whoever was placed
in the seniority list, which was duly published, and received a call for
44 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [2000
interview was under the impression that the criterion which would
judge them for promotion would be seniority-cum-merit.

6. In the meantime, the Regulatory Authority known as
NABARD formed under the National Bank for Agriculture and
Rural
Development
Act,
1981
was
contemplating
issuing
standardised guidelines with change in criterion for promotions. No
change had been heard of until the first communication was being
received by the respondent bank on 29.04.1988 and the subsequent
communication dated 28.05.1988. Both these communications in the
contest refer to changes which were being contemplated in
processing promotion. The entire issue apparently had been argued
before the Hon'ble Judge delivering the judgement appealed against,
on the proposition whether the Regulatory Authority, i.e., NABARD
has the discretion or jurisdiction to issue the circulars for causing
change in the criterion for future promotions. Which one aspect the
Court has no issue before it that no one has challenged the power of
the Regulatory Authority to issue directions. Thus, this aspect is not
in issue.

7. The point which has been missed in the judgement is that if
there be any change in the criteria then what would be the date of its
implementation. Simply put, it means that there can not be a change
in the rules of the game once the game has started.

8. It is admitted to all the parties that the process of
considering departmental candidates for promotion the process was
initiated when the seniority list was put up for publication on
14.04.1988. The fact that by the time the candidates were being
interviewed the criteria was changed, is the circumstance, that has
created the complication. Thus, the first aspect which has to be seen
is on what exactly the Regulatory Authority was suggesting for
changes in the criterion for future promotions. From the record it is
clear that there was a proposal under consideration for changing the
criterion from seniority -cum-merit to merit-cum-suitability. On one
aspect the Court needs to place on record that at the meeting of the
Board on 11.07.1988 the candidates who were to be finally selected
for promotion, were approved. But this is also the date on which the
change of criteria was approved. This does not reflect an
administrative circumstance which inspires confidence.

9. The records of instructions which were being issued by the
NABARD clearly contemplate that the changed criteria was to be
1 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
45
considered at some future date. What this future date would be was
to be considered and decided by the respondent bank. There are
communications issued by the Regulatory Authority (NABARD)
dated 11.05.1988, Annexure-4 to the counter-affidavit, and dated
25.05.1988 at Annexure-6 to the counter-affidavit which clearly
suggest that the changed criteria was to be applicable on any date
after the issue of these communications. There was a meeting of the
Board, of the respondent bank, on 11.07.1988. The minutes of the
meeting are at Annexure-7 to the counter-affidavit. The resume of
the proceedings record that the nominee of the Reserve Bank of India
raised objection. The nominee of the Reserve Bank of India was
clearly pointing out, in effect, that any reference to promotions
which was under consideration the criteria stood as at the relevant
time when the process of consideration was initiated i.e., senioritycum-merit. He had his reservations recorded that promotion should
be considered on seniority basis depending upon the number of
vacancy and that the Board may reconsider its decision in giving
effect to the contemplated promotions. The response to this objection
was that the objection was being made only for purpose of raising an
objection.

10. On behalf of the Bank the only submission was that the
Regulatory Authority NABARD only gives guide-lines, but the
banks are not obliged to obey the guide-lines.

11. The balance which remains on record is that when
departmental candidates have been short listed and their names had
been published, the candidates carry the confidence that promotions
will be considered on the basis of the existing criteria, i.e., senioritycum-merit. These candidates had not anticipated that after the
process of short-listing but before finalisation the criteria would be
changed. This is an error which took place and this has brought
injustice to those who found the changed criteria between the time
they had been short-listed and other candidates were finalised,
leaving out the petitioners because there was a fundamental change
in rules of the game during the course of the game itself.

12. The Court is very clear and is guided by two aspects that
(a) the Regulatory Authority itself was contemplating that the
implementation of the criteria would be at some future date, and the
communication of 11.05.1988 and 25.05.1988 are much after the
date of publishing the names of short-listed candidates on their being
called for interview on 30.05.1988 and (b) the change which was
46 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [2000
contemplated was not to affect the candidates who had been shortlisted and were up for consideration on the existing criteria which
stood as on date when the list had been published. The nominee of
the Reserve Bank of India was pointing out the error on the very date
when the changed criteria was being adopted and the selected
candidates were being approved on the change criteria.

13. Within the parameters of a certiorari action under the
High Court's prerogative writ jurisdiction, it is not necessary for this
Court to quash the appointments on the changed criteria as now it is
for the Bank to do administrative justice. A writ of certiorari points
out the error. The rectification has to be done by those to whom the
writ issues, that is, the respondents. Clearly there has been an error in
the time and chronology of making the changed criteria applicable to
those candidates who had been short-listed on 14.04.1988. The
changed criteria was not to apply to them.

14. Thus, the appeal succeeds and is allowed with costs. The
Judgment dated 01.02.1993 in Writ Petition No.13431 of 1988 is set
aside. The respondent Bank will now be obliged to deliver
administrative justice to petitioners in the writ petition who may
have been effected by the changed criterion which has not to be
applied to them.
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' 7+( $//$+$%$'
'$7(' 7+( $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( <$7,1
7+( +21·%/( <$7,1'5$ 6,1*+ -
'5$ 6,1*+ -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI .

83 6WDWH 5RDG 7UDQVSRUW &RUSRUDWLRQ
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 6DPLU 6KDUPD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6KUL 3& -KLQJDQ
6KUL 9LQRG 6LQKD
6&

,QGXVWULDO 'LVSXWHV $FW 6 UHDG ZLWK 83 ,QGXVWULDO
'LVSXWHV $FW 6 $6FRSH