* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: July 23, 2009
Judgment pronounced on: July 28, 2009
+ W.P. (C ) No. 3225 of 1992
% Virender P. Sah .... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shaym Babu, Advocate
versus
Punjab National Bank & others
... Respondents
Through: Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora,
Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local
papers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest?
SUNIL GAUR, J.
(1) In the year 1989, petitioner- Virender P. Sah, was working as Peon-cum-Daftari with the respondent , i.e. Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as the "Bank") and had cleared examination for promotion to the post of Clerk (non-matriculate) and he was called for interview vide letter of 11th September, 1989, Annexure P-1. The claim of the petitioner is that he had cleared the interview and was successful but his result W.P.(C ) No. 3225 of 1992 Page 1 was withheld as his „Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate‟, Annexure P-5, was subject to verification. Petitioner relies upon Circulars, Annexures- P-2 & P-3, to claim the benefit of being a Scheduled Tribe candidate. Vide communication of 5th February, 1982, Annexure P-4, respondent-Bank was informed that upon verification of the Caste Certificate of the petitioner, it was found that he was a "GOND" of Sah Caste, which is a Scheduled Tribe.
(2) Petitioner had made a Representation, Annexure P-6, to the respondent- Bank, as his result of the interview held on 16th September, 1989 for the post of Clerk (non-matriculate), was not declared but it was not responded to. However, the petitioner had again taken a written test for the promotion to the post of Clerk (non-matriculate) and since there was no response from the side of the respondent-Bank, the petitioner has approached this Court to seek relief of promotion. (3) In the counter affidavit, the stand of the respondent-Bank is that petitioner had submitted a Scheduled Tribe Certificate of 4th September, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as "ST Certificate") and the same was sent for verification, as an anonymous complaint was received about petitioner‟s ST Certificate W.P.(C ) No. 3225 of 1992 Page 2 being forged. The respondent- Bank had sent petitioner‟s ST Certificate for verification vide Letter of 19th January, 1990, Annexure R-1, and vide communication of 11th June, 1990, Annexure R-2, respondent was informed that the petitioner has now been issued a certificate of being "Most Backward Class". Apart from this, it is stated by respondent in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was found unsuccessful as per interview evaluation sheet of 16th September, 1989, which disclosed that the petitioner had obtained twenty marks out of hundred marks in the interview, whereas the passing marks in the interview were thirty three marks.
(4) Learned counsel for the parties were heard in this matter and with their assistance, material on record has been perused.
(5) Although the stand of the petitioner is that he has been not promoted because his status was changed from that of „ST‟ to „Most Backward Class‟ vide Annexure R-2, but infact, the petitioner could not obtain minimum marks, as required in the interview and therefore, he was not promoted. A bare perusal of communication, Annexure P-1, made by the respondent- Bank, to the petitioner, on 11th September, W.P.(C ) No. 3225 of 1992 Page 3 1989, reveals that the petitioner was called upon to bring certificate regarding his educational qualifications and the certificate regarding his date of birth. It needs to be noticed that petitioner was not called upon to produce his Caste Certificate. It is an altogether different matter that anonymous complaint was made regarding petitioner‟s Caste Certificate and vide Annexure R-2, on verification, it was communicated to the respondent-Bank by the authorities concerned that the petitioner belonged to „Most Backward Class‟. Meaning thereby, the petitioner was not a ST. In any case, the Caste consideration would not and could not have mattered because the petitioner had failed to obtain the minimum pass marks in the interview, which were thirty three marks. Since the petitioner could not qualify in the interview for promotion, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for promotion on the basis of the interview held on 16th September, 1989, could be granted.
(6) In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.
(7) No costs.
Sunil Gaur, J.
July 28, 2009
rs
W.P.(C ) No. 3225 of 1992 Page 4