TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>SC Overturns HC Rulings: Necessary Parties Missing, Promotees Win Appeal; Bank Adjustments Deferred to Relevant Authorities.</h1> <h3>Ramrao & Ors. Versus All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association & Ors.</h3> Ramrao & Ors. Versus All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association & Ors. - 2004 AIR 1459, 2004 (1) SCR 19, 2004 (2) SCC 76, 2004 (1) JT ... Issues Involved:1. Validity of the cut-off date for promotion eligibility.2. Legality of the dereservation process.3. Absence of necessary parties in the writ petitions.4. Compliance with promotion procedures.Summary:Validity of the Cut-Off Date for Promotion Eligibility:The High Court upheld the cut-off date of 31.8.1989 fixed by the Bank for deciding the eligibility of its employees for promotion to the posts of Field Supervisors and Officers. The Court found no questionable motive in fixing the cut-off date and deemed the explanation provided by the Bank as plausible. The High Court observed that even if the cut-off date was extended to 31.3.1990, no Scheduled Tribe candidate would have become eligible. The Supreme Court affirmed that the cut-off date was not arbitrary or unreasonable and did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.Legality of the Dereservation Process:The High Court directed the Bank to examine the availability of Scheduled Tribe candidates for promotion from 18.4.1990 to 17.4.1993. However, the Supreme Court noted that the order of dereservation was not questioned in the writ petitions, and the High Court should not have delved into this issue. The Supreme Court emphasized that once dereservation is made, the vacancies become available for general category candidates, and the Bank was not required to reexamine the availability of Scheduled Tribe candidates for the dereserved vacancies.Absence of Necessary Parties in the Writ Petitions:The Supreme Court highlighted that the promotees were not impleaded as parties in the writ petitions, and neither the Union of India nor NABARD was questioned regarding the dereservation order. The absence of these necessary parties rendered the High Court's directions invalid. An order issued without giving an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties is bad in law.Compliance with Promotion Procedures:The Supreme Court acknowledged that the procedures for effecting promotion were followed, and the promotees were legally promoted. The only contention was regarding the compliance with the procedure of dereservation, which was not adequately addressed in the writ petitions. The High Court's directions to reexamine the availability of Scheduled Tribe candidates were deemed incorrect, especially when the cut-off date was correctly fixed.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court due to the absence of necessary parties and the lack of challenge to the dereservation order. The appeals filed by the promotees were allowed, while the appeal by the Association was dismissed. The Court refrained from issuing directions to the Bank regarding the adjustment of both appellants and Scheduled Tribe candidates, leaving it to the Bank, Sponsor Bank, and NABARD to take appropriate decisions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
