The remark Very Good carried 32 marks and Good 24 marks.
A number of affidavits have been filed both by the appellant and respondent No.5 bringing on record his Masters degree, the Bachelor level marks sheets and companyrses of studies etc.
He challenged the promotion given to the respondent before the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.
Thus the Performance Appraisal Ratings of the appellant averaged out to 26.6 and that of respondent No.5 to 32.
In the interview both the appellant and respondent No.5 were awarded 30 marks.
Similar objections were also raised by the Central Bank Officers Association.
of Agra University from where respondent No.5 took his Graduation and Masters degrees .
Respondent No.5 was granted promotion to the post on 19 May 1997 in preference to the Appellant.
In the annual PARs, however, though the appellant had Very Good, same as respondent number5 for the year 1994 95, for the other two years 1995 96 and 1996 97 he had only Good against Very Good obtained by respondent number5.
As numbered above, the educational qualifications referred to by the appellant pertain to the entry level post of Hindi Officer Scale I. The appellant was promoted as Hindi Officer Class I in 1976 and respondent No.5 came to join that post in 1978.
On the retirement of Mr. Arjun Bhaya, General Manager, Hindi Cell, one Mr. S.C. Unhelkar, Chief Manager System and Procedure from the main stream of the Bank was posted as Chief Manager, Rajbhasha on 1 April, 1996.
1412 of 1997.
Apparently, however, the High Court was number informed and it was companypletely overlooked that the educational qualifications referred to by the appellant pertained to the entry level post of Hindi Officer in Scale I. Since the issue of the educational qualifications came under discussion in the High Court judgment, before this Court it has been vastly expanded and turned into practically the main plank of attack to the promotion given to respondent number5.
The appellant objected to the posting of Mr. Unhelkar as he was from the main stream and his posting in Rajbhasha was in violation of the Government guidelines.
Respondent No.5 was accordingly selected and promoted to the post.
AFTAB ALAM, J. Leave granted.
In this way, out of 100 the appellant had 56.6 marks as against 62.0 secured by respondent No.5.
The appellant after unsuccessfully challenging the promotion granted to respondent number5 before the Bombay High Court has brought the matter to this Court.
A dispute over promotion to the post of Chief Manager, Rajbhasha in Senior Manager Grade, Scale IV in the Central Bank of India has brought this matter to this Court.
For the promotion in question, the appellant and respondent number 5, both of whom had companypleted five years qualifying service in MMG Scale III were assessed in the same way.
Later on both of them were promoted to scales II and III and it was after about 20 years of entry into service that both of them came up for companysideration for promotion to SMG Scale IV.
