Page No.# 1/9 GAHC030006512025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/11/2025 1: The Mizoram Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd. and Anr. Represented by its Chairman, Head Office at Tuikual South, Near Tennis Court, Aizawl, Mizoram 2: The Chief Executive Officer (CEO VERSUS 1: Smt Zosangzuali and 6 Ors. D/o Lalmakthanga (L), R/o Dinthar-I, Aizawl 2:Smt Miriam Laltlanmawii 3:Sh C.Lalhriatzuala 4:Sh Lallawmkima 5:Smt Maria Goretti Lalnunziri 6:Sh Lalhruaitluanga Sailo 7:Smt Flora Zosang Linked Case : WA/12/2025 1: The Mizoram Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd. and Anr. represented by its Chairman Head Office at tuikual South Near Tennis Court Aizawl 2: The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Mizoram Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd. Head Office Tuikual South Near Tennis Court Aizawl VERSUS 1: Smt Zirkungi and 2 Ors. D/o JC Rohnuna (L) R/o Serkawn Lunglei 2:Sh Jacoba Chawngthu JMG-I Manager MC Apex Bank Ltd. Vaivakawn Aizawl Page No.# 2/9 3:Smt Laldinsangi JMG-I Manager Main Branch MC Apex Bank Ltd. Treasury Square Aizawl – BEFORE – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA For the Appellant(s) : Mr. C. Lalfazuala, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. C. Lalramzauva, Senoir Advocate assisted by Mr. Stephen Lalbuatsaiha, Advocate for respondent No.2 in WA No.11/2025 & for respondent No.1 in WA No.12/2025. Date of Hearing : 04.11.2025. Date of Judgment : 04.11.2025. J UDGMENT & O RDER (ORAL) (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned Advocate for the appellants/Mizoram Cooperative Apex Bank Limited & Anr. and Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Senior Advocate for respondent No.2 in WA No.11/2025 and for respondent No.1 in WA No.12/2025. 2. Both the appeals have been taken up together and are being disposed off by this common judgment. 3. The challenge made herein is to the judgment dated 14.08.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.94/2024 and WP(C) No.99/2024. Both the writ petitions were decided by a composite judgment. 4. The writ petitioners in WP(C) No.94/2024 were confirmed to the post of Assistant Grade-I on 06.02.2025. A provisional inter-se-seniority list Page No.# 3/9 of Assistant Grade-I was made by Notification dated 27.02.2024 in which the writ petitioners were placed high in the merit list. Later, 14 posts of Assistant Grade- II which had fallen vacant, was required to be filled up, for which the writ petitioners had applied. They were amongst the eligible candidates but the final Notification dated 23.07.2024 displayed that they were ousted from the consideration and the promotions were given to the juniors in Assistant Grade-II in the level –8 of pay matrix of the Bank. Similarly, the writ petitioner in WP(C) No.99/2024 was also aggrieved by the Notification dated 23.07.2024 by which juniors to her were given promotion to the post of Junior Management Grade from Assistant Grade-II in the Bank. Both the promotional exercises were undertaken under Channel-B which provides that it shall be based on the principle of seniority-cum-merit. 5. In order to understand the challenge of the appellants, it would be necessary to first refer to the relevant provisions of the Mizoram Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd., Staff Service (Amendment) Rules, 2024. Rule 19(1)(a) of the said Rules clearly provides that promotion to all grades in different categories would be subject to the availability of vacancy, made in accordance with the Rules of Promotion, framed by the Board/Executive Committee from time to time, and on the basis of written test, performance, seniority and interview of the employee concerned (Appendix- I to Appendix-XI). Rule 19(1)(d) further specifies that where there are two more promotees at the same time from the same grade through merit-cum- Page No.# 4/9 seniority channel and seniority channel, their seniority will be fixed, giving priority to merit-cum-seniority channel in a proportionate ratio of 2:1. Rule 23 clearly specifies the modality relating to promotion. Rule 23(1) provides that in case of any two employees securing equal marks, the final selection shall be on the basis of inter-se-seniority. In the same Rule, two channels have been specified, namely, Channel-A and Channel-B; dealing with merit-cum-seniority and seniority- cum-merit model respectively. In both the Channels, the weightage given to performance, seniority and interview is in the ratio of 45:20:35. The only difference between these two Channels is that for promotion under Channel-A, there shall be a written test, which has not been provided in Channel-B. For a maximum of 100 marks in both the channels, the minimum qualifying marks to be considered for promotion will be 50% of the aggregate and selection would be made on the basis of combined marks of written test, performance, seniority and interview. 6. Perforce, these Rules have to be read with Appendix-III which deals with promotion from Assistant Grade-I to Grade-II in Channel-B. Section 5(1) of the Appendix-III mandates that an employee in the Assistant Grade-I having rendered confirmed continuous satisfactory service to the Bank for 5(five) years will be eligible for promotion to Grade-II through seniority Channel. 7. Thus, a bare reading of Rules 19 and 23 and Appendix-III make it very obvious that there are two channels of promotion available under the Rules : Channel-A, which is to follow the merit-cum-seniority model, Page No.# 5/9 whereas Channel-B is for seniority-cum-merit. However, the modality for assessment which has been provided for both the channels is almost similar except for written test which would be conducted for Channel-A promotion and not for Channel-B promotion. 8. So far as weightage to performance, seniority and interview is concerned, in both the channels the ratio of weightage has been provided as 45:20:35. The only sequiter of these Rules is that in both the channels, performance would be considered on the basis of marks obtained by a candidate/aspirant in the ratio specified, but due weightage would be given to merit in Channel-A and to seniority in Channel-B. 9. In the afore-noted two writ petitions, which were disposed off by the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioners had obtained much higher than the cut-off marks of 50% but they were not promoted solely on the ground that more meritorious candidates were available who were but juniors to the writ petitioners. 10. The learned Single Judge, after having discussed the law with respect to the binary mode of promotion, namely, the merit model and the seniority model, found that when the writ petitioners/ respondents herein had obtained more than the cut-off marks of 50%, then seniority had to be reckoned for any promotion in Channel-B. 11. After going through the case laws, the learned Single Judge concluded that since the writ petitioners/respondents had scored the minimum qualifying marks to be considered for promotion which is 50% of Page No.# 6/9 the aggregate and the promotion being carried out in Channel-B which is the seniority model, it was absolutely unjustified to exclude them from promotion and promote the juniors, who perhaps had secured more marks in the assessment, which was a combined assessment of performance, seniority and interview. 12. The Supreme Court in Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta –Vs- High Court of Gujarat & Ors. :: (2024) 11 SCC 424 has explained the principles of seniority-cum-merit and merit-cum-seniority model, which are conceptually different. In seniority-cum-merit, minimum requirement of merit and suitability which is necessary for the higher post can be prescribed for the purposes of promotion. In this model, comparative assessment amongst the candidates is not required. Seniority of a candidate but is not the only determinative factor for promotion but it has a predominant role. This, therefore, implies that upon fulfilling the minimum qualification, promotions would be based on inter-se-seniority. 13. The merit-cum-seniority model postulates that merit plays a predominant role and seniority alone cannot be given primacy. In this model, the comparative assessment of merit is crucial, but is not a mandatory factor. This, therefore, implies that only where merit is equal in all respects, can inter-se- seniority be considered. In other words, a junior candidate could be promoted over the senior if the junior is more meritorious. 14. However, after having explained the concept, the Supreme Court very pithily held that these models are by no means to be Page No.# 7/9 regarded as rigid or inflexible in nature. Otherwise, these judicial connotations would effectively assume the character of statutory stipulation laid down through various judicial pronouncements and would become applicable to all types of services, posts and promotions, thereby leading to the transgression by the judiciary into the realms of policy making. What the Supreme Court emphasized was that these models could be interpreted in the afore-noted manner in the absence of any specific stipulation in the Rules governing the field of promotion. 15. While the learned Single Judge castigated the decision of the appellants in excluding the writ petitioners/respondents herein from being promoted, it was held that dehors the Rules governing the field, the appellants had applied the hybrid model which takes into account both the modalities of merit- cum-seniority and seniority-cum-merit. 16. On the afore-noted aspect of the matter, we deem it appropriate to state that both the models are fluid in nature and therefore, many a times, while going through the Promotion Policy, the Courts have recognized a third mode of promotion, namely, the hybrid mode of promotion, where it is open for the employer to specify the area and parameter of weight required to be given to merit and seniority for the purposes of promotion. 17. It is precisely for this reason that the Supreme Court in the case of K. Samantary Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. :: (2004) 9 SCC 286 held that it is always open for the employer or the Selection Body to decide and stipulate their own criteria for adjudging the claims on the principles Page No.# 8/9 of merit-cum-seniority and seniority-cum-merit depending upon the class, category and nature of the posts and the requirements of efficiency. 18. In the present case, it appears that there is an elaborate Promotion Policy by way of statutory Rules, clearly indicating the parameters on which promotions are to be made. In a way when provision has been made for the modality of assessment of the respective merit and seniority, the Rules in question provide a somewhat hybrid model which is capable of creating confusion while deciding about promotion to the employees. 19. The confusion can be sorted out by understanding that there is an essential difference between the modes of promotion and the modalities of promotion. The mode of promotion would include either the merit model or the seniority model, which in the present set of Rules is Channel-A and B respectively. The modality for both the models has been prescribed. In Channel-A which deals with merit mode, assessment of merit is done on a scale of 100 awarding weightage to written test, performance, seniority and interview. Sans the written test requirement in Channel-B, the ratio remains the same for performance, seniority and interview (45:20:35). 20. Thus, to some extent, the Rules herein would be called a hybrid mode of promotion but the specification in Appendix-III that the promotion from Grade-I to Grade-II or for Grade-II to GMJ Grade would follow the seniority channel (Channel-B), then it would only be in consonance with the Rules that after the candidates acquire the minimum qualifying marks in assessment, seniority is given appropriate Page No.# 9/9 weightage. 21. Not reading the Rules in this manner would render the stipulation in Appendix-III to be redundant/ nugatory or absolutely otiose. 22. Having explained thus, we do not find that the learned Single Judge erred in setting aside the Notification dated 23.07.2024 and issuing direction for consideration of the writ petitioners/respondents in WA No.11/2025 herein for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-II along with other eligible candidates with retrospective effect from 23.07.2024 along with other service benefits; and promotion to writ petitioner/ respondent in WA No.1 in WA No.99/2024 to the post of Junior Management Grade along with other eligible candidates again from the retrospective date of 23.07.2024 with all the service benefits. 23. For the reasons explained here in above, we find no merit in these writ appeals and the same are dismissed accordingly. 24. We take note of the fact that despite issuance of notice, the private respondents have declined to appear before the Court. However, since the judgment impugned in these two writ appeals is not being altered, it would make no difference if the private respondents are not represented. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant