Court dismisses petitioners’ plea for promotion test participation, ruling on eligibility based on gradation list.

Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here

Case Name:

All the petitioners are now working as Banking Assistants under    Bhawanipatna Central Co-Operative Bank Vs Chief Executive Officer   Bhawanipatna Central Co-Operative Bank, 

W.P.(C) No.18811 of 2021

Date: 23rd August 2024

Key Takeaways

• The court emphasized the importance of adherence to the gradation list for eligibility in promotion tests.
• The decision reinforces the application of the Human Resource Policy for promotions within cooperative banks.
• It clarifies the limits of writ jurisdiction concerning cooperative societies, indicating they may not be treated as “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution.

Issue

Did the petitioners have the right to participate in the promotion test for Assistant Manager-II positions despite being ranked lower in the gradation list?

Facts

• The petitioners, all Banking Assistants at the Bhawanipatna Central Co-operative Bank, were excluded from a promotion test scheduled for June 20, 2021.
• The Chief Executive Officer of the bank had issued a list of eligible candidates based on a gradation list, which did not include the petitioners.
• The petitioners argued that the selection process violated the Human Resource Policy, which required three times the number of vacancies to be called for the test.

Arguments

• Petitioners’ Argument: They claimed that their exclusion from the promotion test was unjust and violated the HR Policy, which mandates that three times the number of vacancies should be called for the test. They sought to quash the eligibility list and participate in the test.
• Opposite Parties’ Argument: The bank’s representatives contended that the petitioners were ineligible based on their positions in the gradation list. They argued that the selection process adhered to the HR Policy and that the petitioners were not among the top candidates eligible for the test.

Key Legal Precedents

• The court referenced Rule 17 of the HR Policy, which outlines the promotion process based on written tests, interviews, and performance appraisals.
• The court also discussed the applicability of Article 12 of the Constitution, determining that the Bhawanipatna Central Cooperative Bank does not qualify as a “State” or “instrumentality of the State,” thus limiting the scope of writ jurisdiction.

Judgment

The Orissa High Court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that the petitioners were not eligible to participate in the promotion test due to their lower rankings in the gradation list. The court found that the bank had followed the HR Policy correctly and that the petitioners’ claims did not warrant intervention under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The court vacated any interim orders previously issued in favor of the petitioners.

FAQs

1. What does this judgment mean for the petitioners?

• The petitioners cannot participate in the promotion test, and their chances for promotion are affected due to their positions in the gradation list.

2. Can the petitioners appeal this decision?

• While the court dismissed the writ petition, the petitioners may seek remedies through other legal avenues, such as the provisions under the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act.

3. What is the significance of the court’s ruling on the gradation list?

• The ruling reinforces the importance of the gradation list in determining eligibility for promotions, ensuring that the selection process is based on established criteria.

4. How does this case impact cooperative banks in Odisha?

• This case clarifies the legal standing of cooperative banks concerning writ jurisdiction and emphasizes adherence to internal policies for promotions.