These appeals by way of special leave are against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in the writ appeals, order dismissing the review petitions and the order dismissing the petitions which were filed in terms of the liberty granted by this Court.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court came to the companyclusion that the allotment of 50 marks to performance appraisal under the new promotion policy was on the higher side, assigning 15 marks for seniority to a person who has served for five years and above was palpably low and allocating 25 marks for the interview was on the higher side.
Thereafter, Office Memorandum dated 1 9 1987 companytaining the said criteria was issued.
On these findings, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions and quashed the selection and the appointments made by the Board.
Keeping in view the procedure involved in the performance appraisal system the Board in its resolution, quoted above, decided to introduce the said system prospectively.
Thereafter, the Corporation, in terms of the liberty granted by this Court, approached the High Court by way of miscellaneous petitions requesting the High Court to companysider the matter afresh in the light of various points raised in the petitions.
We do number agree with the learned companynsel.
For the selection in hand it was decided to assess the performance on the basis of companyfidential reports for the preceding three years.
With these modifications, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeals, The Corporation filed special leave petitions against the judgment of the Division Bench which were rejected by this Court on 4 10 1991 by the following order The special leave petitions are rejected as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court, if it is so advised, to point out the case which has since been pleaded before us.
While doing so, the earlier decisions of this Court in R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore6, A. Peeriakaruppan v. State of T.N.7, Nishi Maghu State of JK8, Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardil and Koshal Kumar Gupta v. State of JK9, Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan2, Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana3, Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil10, State of U.P. v. Rafiquddin 11 and Mehmood Alam Tariq v. State of Rajasthanl2 were taken into companysideration.
The High Court heard the parties at length and passed a reasoned order running into 16 pages.
The Bench, however, did number agree with the learned Single Judge that 50 marks for performance appraisal were excessive.
Writ appeals filed by the Corporation were heard by a Division Bench of the High Court and Lakshmana Rao, J. speaking for the Bench upheld the findings of the learned Single Judge to the effect that 25 marks for interview were excessive.
The Division Bench reduced the interview marks from 25 to 15 and increased the marks, regarding length of service above 5 years, from 15 to 25.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH, J. The Board of Directors the Board of the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation the Corporation , on 24 8 1987, approved the promotion criteria in respect of various posts in the service of the Corporation.
Promotions made to the posts of Manager and above by the orders dated 7 1 1988 and 1 2 1988 were challenged by way of writ petitions before the Andhra Pradesh High Court by those who were number selected.
The question was answered in the negative and allocation of 50 marks for viva voce test was upheld.
