MUKTA GUPTA, J. - (1.)BY the present petition the Petitioner impugns the award dated 2nd January, 1998 whereby the learned Industrial Tribunal held that the action of the Petitioner in not confirming Respondent No. 2 as Assistant Treasurer and promoting his juniors through an interview held on 29th July, 1987 was not justified and Respondent No.2 was entitled to be confirmed as Assistant Treasurer w.e.f. 1st August, 1987 with all consequential benefits.
(2.)LEARNED counsel for the Petitioner contends that in the Reserve Bank of India in note examination section of the Cash Department, the four promotional posts in the Class-III cadre are Coin Note Examiner Grade-II, Coin Note Examiner Grade-I, Teller and from Teller to Assistant Treasurer which is a Class-I post for officers grade. However, to meet the exigency of service and the fact that the post cannot be kept vacant if on a particular day a Coin Note Examiner Grade-I suddenly takes leave or is absent or any Teller is absent then in order to ensure the smooth functioning, the senior most Coin Note Examiner Grade-II is promoted to Coin Note Examiner Grade-I for that particular day and the Coin Note Examiner Grade-I is promoted to Teller for that day. Similarly for a casual vacancy due to sudden absenteeism to the post of Assistant Treasurer the senior most Teller is promoted for a day as Assistant Treasurer. The said promotions are on day-to-day basis and are purely due to administrative exigencies to ensure proper functioning of the bank. Respondent No. 2 was never promoted as Assistant Treasurer on 1st August, 1987 till 3rd August, 1987 on regular basis. It was a promotion for three days to meet the exigency of service. For promotion from Teller to Assistant Treasurer, seniority-cum-suitability is looked into. Thus seniority is not the only criteria. Respondent No.2 was interviewed on 29th July, 1987 however, on 5th August, 1987 when the result was declared, it was found that Respondent No. 2 had not been empanelled for promotion to the post of Assistant Treasurer. Thus at no point of time, regular promotion was granted to Respondent No.2 and therefore, the finding of the learned Trial Court that the regular promotion having been granted to Respondent No. 2, he was entitled to be confirmed as Assistant Treasurer w.e.f. 1st August, 1987 with all consequential benefits is wholly illegal. Thus the impugned award is liable to be set aside.
Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 on the other hand contends that Respondent No. 2 was the senior most person and his seniority could not have been ignored. Even Respondent No. 2 in his statement of claim clearly stated that the seniority has never been ignored in the Petitioner organization and thus the same could not have been done in the case of Respondent No. 2. By promoting persons junior to Respondent No. 2, the Petitioner has taken recourse to unfair labour practice and has violated Article 16 of the Constitution of India. As regards the contention that Respondent No. 2 was not found suitable in the interview it is stated that neither any show cause notice was given to Respondent No. 2 nor any enquiry ordered nor was there any adverse entry recorded. Since it was an admitted case of the Petitioner that Respondent No. 2 was the senior most and the Petitioner failed to show that the performance of Respondent No. 2 was not good, the Trial Court was justified in directing confirmation of Respondent No. 2 to the post of Assistant Treasurer. Reliance is placed on Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 1975 (1) SCR 449. It is also contended that Respondent No. 2 has since reached the age of superannuation and the only relief he is entitled to would be in terms of the monitory relief.

(3.)I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.