Virender P. Sah vs Punjab National Bank & Others
2009 Latest Caselaw 2880 Del

*                 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