Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 494 (PAT)

Durga Das Samanta v. State Bank Of India

2000-03-29

N.PANDEY

body2000
Judgment N.Pandey, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent-authorities to promote the petitioner in the Senior Management Grade V from the date his immediate juniors have been promoted or with effect from 1.8.1987, the date on which his promotion in such a grade became due and accordingly make payment of the consequential benefits to which he may be legally entitled. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed and joined as trainee Officer Grade I of the State Bank of India. He was later promoted to Middle Management Grade III in the year 1979 and thereafter in Senior Management Grade scale IV in the year 1983. The grievance is although having regard to the excellent service career, he was allowed to officiate in Senior Management Grade V with effect from 1985-88 but at the time of regular promotion against the concerned grade, his case was ignored and several persons junior to him were promoted. Similarly on the subsequent occasions also, although promotions were granted to the officers junior to the petitioner but his claim was ignored. The petitioner on all the occasions filed different appeals against the orders whereby promotions were granted to other junior persons but no reason whatsoever was assigned under what circumstances his claim was not considered for promotion. 3. On the other hand on behalf of the respondent Bank, a counter affidavit has been filed taking a stand that promotion to the post of Senior Management Grade V is granted on the basis of selection against the vacancies available in the Bank on all India basis. The selection process, inter alia, envisages assessment of performance in the assignments held by an eligible officer, nature and quality of annual confidential report earned during the relevant period and assessment of certain traits. Therefore, relative merit based on the assessment, appraisal of annual confidential reports and assessment of traits in respect of each eligible officials including the petitioner was considered from time to time. But unfortunately, the petitioner could not secure marks above the cut off level for qualifying in the zone of selection, therefore, he was not called for interview. Hence, it would be wrong to allege that the case of the petitioner was not considered for promotion. 4. But unfortunately, the petitioner could not secure marks above the cut off level for qualifying in the zone of selection, therefore, he was not called for interview. Hence, it would be wrong to allege that the case of the petitioner was not considered for promotion. 4. To appreciate the rival contention of the parties, in my view it would be apt to notice the promotional policy of the respondent Bank in Senior Management Grade Scales IV and V, approved by the Executive Committee of the Central Board, a copy of which is Annexure 18 to the writ petition. A reference to the above it would appear that the eligibility for promotion to Senior Management - Scale IV is minimum four years service as Officer in MMG (Minimum Management Grade) III and for promotion to SMG-V, a minimum four years service is essential for officers of SMG scale IV. As per para 3.1 of the above policy, all officers, who had fulfilled the four years minimum service in SMG Scale IV, as above, will constitute the zone of consideration. Thereupon, promotion appraisal forms and assignment appraisal reports will accordingly be applied on all such officers, in order to include them in the zone of selection. Para 3.2 is a procedure for selection of an officer who comes within the zone of selection after due observance of the formalities as aforesaid. It would further appear that total marks is 200 for assessment of suitability for promotion i.e. (i) Performance-100 marks, (ii) Ratings earned under Reporting System-40 (iii) Assessment on Traits-20 and (iv) lnterview-40. Para 3.6 shows that there will be 50% minimum qualifying marks at the interview. All the officers constituting zone of selection will be interviewed by an interview committee constituted by the promoting authority for this purpose. Para 3.7 is the stage of final selection after taking into consideration the total marks earned under various parameters. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that from a bare reference to the annual reports of the petitioners performance of the relevant year 1987, it would appear that his overall rating was B+, which was better than all his colleagues, who have been promoted. But the respondents arbitrarily ignored his claim for promotion. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that from a bare reference to the annual reports of the petitioners performance of the relevant year 1987, it would appear that his overall rating was B+, which was better than all his colleagues, who have been promoted. But the respondents arbitrarily ignored his claim for promotion. The learned counsel contended that from the averments in the writ application and other relevant papers on record it would appear although the petitioner from time to time filed appeal before the competent authority, but with respect to the year 1987-88, no order has yet been communicated about the result of such appeals. With respect to the years 1989 or 1990 as would appear from Annexure 13 dated 20.11.1992, that sealed cover cases were reviewed and opened at the central office in terms of the revised guidelines but on opening the sealed cover, the petitioner was not found suitable for promotion. For the year 1991, of course as would appear from Annexure 12, dismissal of the appeal was communicated, but without disclosing any reason. 6. Learned counsel contended that it is well settled that in a case of promotion on selection, the selection record must indicate the reasons, however, brief they may be, so that when tested at a judicial review, the Court may be better assisted by such record to reach a correct decision. In this case, the petitioner from time to time by filing representations, requested the authorities for the appraisal of the reasons due to which he was not granted promotion. But such representations/appeals were rejected in mechanical manner and no reason whatsoever was assigned. 7. He next contended that mala fide of the respondents in the matter relating to promotion of the petitioner is also apparent from the communication dated 20.11.1992, contained in Annexure 13, from which it would appear that a sealed cover procedure was adopted in his case which was completely uncalled for. Because throughout the petitioners service neither there was any chargesheet against him nor he was ever placed under suspension in any departmental proceeding. Therefore, it was quite mala fide and arbitrary for the respondents to apply the sealed cover procedure in such a case. Because throughout the petitioners service neither there was any chargesheet against him nor he was ever placed under suspension in any departmental proceeding. Therefore, it was quite mala fide and arbitrary for the respondents to apply the sealed cover procedure in such a case. Reference in this regard was made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India And Others vs. K.V. Jankiraman And Others [ (1991) 4 SCC 109 ] to state that unless and until a charge memo in a disciplinary proceeding or a charge sheet in any criminal prosecution is issued to an employee, no sealed cover procedure can be resorted. Although the respondents have filed detailed counter affidavits but they have not been able to controvert these facts. 8. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the Bank contended that as would appear from the facts stated in the counter affidavit and banks policy as noticed above to grant promotion to Senior Management Grade, the management is required to assess overall performance of the concerned officers. In this regard, while referring to the promotional policy to Senior Management Grade scales IV and V, he contended since such promotions are granted on all India basis, therefore, a complete mechanism has been prescribed for such promotion. Unfortunately, although the petitioner comes within the eligibility criteria for promotion to Senior Management Grade V but he could (sicnot?) come in the zone of consideration, therefore, not selected for promotion. 9. In my view having regard to the rival contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, as well as the Banks policy, Annexure 18 to the writ application, it would appear that simply because an officer fulfils the eligibility criteria, he will not automatically come within the zone of selection. The selection process inter alia envisages assessment of performance in the assignment held by an eligible officer, nature and quality of annual confidential reports earned during the relevant period and assessment of certain traits. According to the respondents, based on the assessment, appraisals, annual confidential reports and assessment of traits, promotion appraisal forms were accordingly compiled in respect of all the eligible officers including the petitioner, but he could not come in the zone of selection, therefore, not called for interview. According to the respondents, based on the assessment, appraisals, annual confidential reports and assessment of traits, promotion appraisal forms were accordingly compiled in respect of all the eligible officers including the petitioner, but he could not come in the zone of selection, therefore, not called for interview. Whereas the petitioner on the basis of the annual review of his performance for the year 1987, pointed out that his overall rating was B+ i.e. more than those officers who were granted promotion. 10. From the facts noticed above, it would appear that undisputedly the claim of the petitioner was considered on different occasions for promotion during the subsequent years. Therefore, simply because his overall rating for the year 1987 was found B+ it would not be proper to raise any doubt with respect to the selections which took place in subsequent years. But it cannot be ignored that petitioner filed his appeals/revisions from time to time with a request to the authorities to disclose reasons, under what circumstances several officers junior to him were granted promotion, but his case was ignored. In the counter affidavit although a general statement has been made that on consideration of the overall performance, the petitioner was not found fit for promotion. But no such reason was assigned at any time when the representations or appeals filed by the petitioner were rejected. True it is, as held by the Apex Court in several cases it is not expected for the appellate authority to give anything approaching to a judgment of a court, but it must at least state, as briefly as it may, why it came to the conclusion that the official concerned was not found suitable for promotion or to be included in the select list. Because in absence of such facts the Court will be of course not be able to know the reasons for not bringing the petitioner in the select list or the zone of selection. To support such a view a reference in this regard can be usefully made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gurdial Singh Fijji vs. State of Punjab and others ( AIR 1979 SC 1622 ). A view more or less akin to the above was further expressed in the case of State Bank of India etc. vs. Kashinath Kher and others, etc. A view more or less akin to the above was further expressed in the case of State Bank of India etc. vs. Kashinath Kher and others, etc. ( AIR 1996 SC 1328 ) and it was held that in a case of selection, the record of Selection Board must indicate reasons, howsoever brief they may be so that when tested by judicial review, the Court may be assisted in proper manner. But unfortunately inspite of ample opportunity, neither any reason was assigned by the appellate authority nor the relevant documents were attached with the counter affidavit. 11. The next aspect regarding decision of the authority to apply sealed cover process in the case of the petitioners promotion for the year 1989-90 is yet another irregularity which cannot be overlooked. Because it is well known unless and until an officer is placed under suspension, or he has been served with a charge memo, in any departmental proceeding or chargesheeted in a criminal case, no sealed cover process can be adopted. In support of such a view reference in this regard has already been made to a decision of the Apex Court reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109 (supra). Because as pointed out by the petitioner, throughout his service career he was neither suspended nor any charge memo was served in any departmental proceeding or a criminal case. Therefore, taking into consideration the above facts in my view the impugned decision of the respondents to apply sealed cover procedure for the concerned year was uncalled for and impoper. 12. For the reasons stated above to exclude any scope of arbitrariness and unreasonableness, it appears in the interest of justice that entire matter be examined by the Managing Director (Respondent No. 2) before whom the petitioner had also filed appeals from time to time. Therefore, keeping in mind these facts into consideration I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Managing Director to examine the grievance of the petitioner and pass any appropriate order indicating reasons, howsoever brief that may be so that in case of judicial review, if any, one can appreciate the reasons due to which the officer was denied promotion. But having regard to the old claim of the petitioner, expeditious disposal of his grievance is certainly expected from Respondent No. 2.