Court’s Decision
The Orissa High Court dismissed the petitioner’s writ challenging the bank’s decision to withdraw her officiating position as Branch Manager-II (Grade-IV), re-designated as Assistant Manager (Grade-IV). The court held that since officiating arrangements do not create a vested right for permanent promotion, the petitioner could not claim a legal right to the promotional post. The court upheld the bank’s policy decision to rescind all officiating arrangements per its internal rules.
Facts
The petitioner joined the Urban Co-operative Bank as a Junior Clerk in 1986 and rose to the Senior Assistant position. In 1995, she was placed in an officiating role as Branch Manager-II (Grade-IV). However, in 2010, a bank order annulled all officiating positions, re-designating the post of Branch Manager-II as Assistant Manager (Grade-IV), which led to her reversion to the position of Senior Assistant.
Despite filing multiple representations and writ petitions over the years, challenging her reversion and claiming promotion, the petitioner faced continual rejection due to adverse entries in her Confidential Character Rolls (CCRs) for the years 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10, as well as further unsatisfactory performance assessments.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner had a right to retain her officiating position as Branch Manager-II (Grade-IV) despite the bank’s policy decision.
- Whether adverse entries in the petitioner’s CCRs justified the bank’s decision to deny her regular promotion.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that she had held the officiating role for over 15 years, effectively establishing her seniority and entitlement to promotion. She contended that her rights were being unfairly compromised due to unsubstantiated adverse remarks in her CCRs and that junior colleagues were promoted over her, violating principles of fairness and natural justice.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents, representing the Urban Co-operative Bank, argued that the petitioner’s performance, documented in her CCRs, showed a pattern of negligence, habitual absenteeism, and misconduct. They asserted that the reversion was part of a broad policy decision to rescind all officiating arrangements without affecting any legal rights of employees, as such arrangements did not confer a right to regular promotion.
Analysis of the Law
The court examined relevant sections of the Odisha Co-operative Societies Act and Article 12 of the Constitution to determine whether the bank fell within its writ jurisdiction. Relying on service jurisprudence, the court highlighted that while an employee has a fundamental right to be considered for promotion, officiating arrangements do not establish a claim to a permanent promotional post. Furthermore, adverse CCRs create a valid ground for withholding promotion under service rules.
Precedent Analysis
Citing Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam (2022) and Union of India v. K.K. Vadhera (1989), the court observed that promotion rights are contingent on rules and satisfactory performance evaluations. In line with Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab (1999), it reaffirmed that the right to be “considered” for promotion exists, but the right to claim the promotion requires compliance with performance standards and eligibility criteria.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that the bank’s policy to rescind officiating roles was within its discretion, provided it was applied equitably. The petitioner’s failure to demonstrate satisfactory performance in multiple assessments substantiated the bank’s decision. The court also noted that the petitioner’s continuous filing of representations did not establish a legal basis to override the bank’s adverse evaluations.
Conclusion
The court concluded that the bank’s withdrawal of officiating positions did not violate the petitioner’s rights, as such roles do not confer permanent entitlement to promotion. The petition was dismissed.
Implications
This judgment underscores the limits of judicial review over internal policy decisions of cooperative institutions, particularly regarding promotions from officiating roles. It reinforces the principle that promotional rights are dependent on both performance and compliance with organizational policies rather than prolonged officiation in a higher role.