Sh. Ramswarup Azad vs Central Bank Of India And Anr.
2013 Latest Caselaw 1895 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                          WP(C) No.3552/1997

%                                                           April 26, 2013

SH. RAMSWARUP AZAD                            ..... Petitioner
                 Through:                Mr. F.I. Chaudhary, Advocate.


                           versus

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND ANR.        ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. R.S. Mathur, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. There are two issues which have been urged before me on

behalf of the petitioner. First is the claim for promotion from Clerk to Junior

Management Grade I and for further promotions, and which claim is

predicated on the ground that the civil court in the suit filed by the petitioner

has set aside the debarment of the petitioner imposed against the petitioner

by the respondent No.1 for appearing in future examinations because the

petitioner was found to have used unfair means in the promotional

examination. The second issue which is argued before me is the claim for

relief of salary increments on the ground that the petitioner is a graduate, and

graduates have to get salary increments.

2. Taking the second issue first, this issue deserves to be

dismissed in limini because there is not a single averment in the writ petition

nor is any ground set out, which could be pointed out to me as to how the

petitioner is a graduate and how the petitioner therefore is entitled to claim

increments. Once no cause of action is pleaded in the writ petition and no

ground is laid, no relief can be granted on that basis. I having accordingly

rejected the petitioner's claim I am not dealing with the submissions of the

respondent No.1 that petitioner is seeking to play a fraud as he is not a

graduate.

3. That takes me to the second issue of the entitlement of the

petitioner to first stage promotion to Junior Manager Grade I and

consequentially to subsequent promotions. In this regard, it could not be

disputed on behalf of the petitioner that entitlement to promotion is only

after the petitioner appears in the examination and he clears the examination

for being promoted.

The only argument urged on behalf of the petitioner is that once

the debarment of the petitioner was set aside, the petitioner should

automatically get promotion. I cannot agree with this argument because the

petitioner after his debarment order was set aside, was given promotion by

the respondent No.1-bank, of course, on the petitioner clearing the

examination which was required to be given for promotion. Once the

petitioner had got promotion by clearing of the examination and as also got

subsequent promotions by clearing of examinations petitioner cannot claim

promotion merely on the ground that debarment order against him is set

aside. Entitlement to promotion is not automatic but only on passing of the

exam; and without passing exams petitioner cannot get promotion from a

back date or alleged consequential promotions from back dates even before

clearing of the exams. I may also note that the debarment order has been set

aside not on merits but on the technical ground of non-compliance with the

principles of natural justice.

4. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, which is

accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J APRIL 26, 2013 Ne