Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 280 (GAU)

Bakul Ch. Majumdar v. State Bank of India

2002-06-26

D.BISWAS

body2002
D. BISWAS, J.— The question to be answered in this writ petition is whether the refusal of promotion to the petitioner, an officer in MMG Scale-II of the State Bank of India to the next higher grade, MMG Scale-Ill was in accordance with the provisions of the Rules and Regulation of the bank and, if not, the relief to which the petitioner is entitled to. 2. The petitioner after completion of Post Graduate studies in Science appeared in the Probationary Officers Examination. He was selected and appointed as such in the month of December, 1993. His initial posting was at Agartala Branch of the State Bank of India in the State of Tripura. On successful completion of the probation period of two years, he was confirmed in the Junior Management Scale-I. In November, 1989 the petitioner was promoted to the Middle Management Grade-II. On completion of three years of service in the Middle Management Grade-II, the petitioner became eligible for consideration for promotion to the MMG Scale-Ill as per Circular dated March 25, 1991, the list of officers selected for promotion was published on 15.12.1992 and the petitioner, to his utter surprise found that he was not selected. He submitted an appeal and review application to the appropriate authority. These went in vain. In the meantime, in August 1994, another list of officers selected for promotion to MMG Scale-Ill was published. This time also the petitioner was not selected for promotion. The petitioner again preferred an appeal to the appropriate^ authority on 6.9.1994. Because of in ordinance delay in the disposal of the appeal, the petitioner approached this Court for quashing of the ACR/ Performance report allegedly written by the officer without jurisdiction and for appropriate direction for consideration of his case for promotion with effect from November 1, 1992. 3. The Bank Authorities in their affidavit-in-opposition took the stand that eligibility for promotion depends on performance report. The petitioner failed to secure the minimum cut off mark and, therefore, was not in the zone of selection for promotion. It is contended that the "performance of the petitioner for last 6 years, ACR/PAS for the last 5 years were screened by the Screening Committee to form a zone of selection for promotion to MMG-Scale-III with effect from 1.11.93". They also denied that ACR/PAS was written by unauthorised officer in deviation of the usual practice followed by the Bank. 4. It is contended that the "performance of the petitioner for last 6 years, ACR/PAS for the last 5 years were screened by the Screening Committee to form a zone of selection for promotion to MMG-Scale-III with effect from 1.11.93". They also denied that ACR/PAS was written by unauthorised officer in deviation of the usual practice followed by the Bank. 4. I have heard Mr. Kamal Agarwal, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and also Mr. B. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent Bank. 5. Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per pro visions of Clause -(10) of the Circular dated March 25, 1991, the petitioner having completed three years service was in the zone of consideration for promotion to the MMG Scale-Ill, but the respondent authority did not consider his case for promotion in violation of the provisions of the aforesaid circular and the guidelines. It has been further submitted that the writ petitioner although in the zone of consideration was not called for interview by the Selection Committee. The next grievance of the writ petitioner, Mr. Agarwal highlights, is that the ACR/Performance report written by the officer without jurisdiction cannot form the basis for ousting the writ petitioner from the zone of selection. 6. The Circular dated March 25, 1991 has been annexed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition. This circular spells out the procedure to be followed in the matter of promotion to MMG Scale-Ill. The provisions relevant for the case at hand are quoted below:- "PROMQTION TO MMG SCALE III 9.1. Eligibility Criteria a) SERVICE All officers in MMGS-II who fulfil any of the following criteria will be eligible for consideration for promotion to MMG Scale III. i) 3 years' service in MMG Scale II with both parts of CAIIB. ii) 4 years' service in MMG Scale II with Part I of CAIIB. iii) 5 years' service in MMG Scale II without SAIIB qualification. For this purpose, while the length of service in MMG. Scale II will be reckoned as on the effective date of promotion (e.g. August 1), the CAIIB qualification obtaining as on March 31, of the year of promotion will taken into account. iii) 5 years' service in MMG Scale II without SAIIB qualification. For this purpose, while the length of service in MMG. Scale II will be reckoned as on the effective date of promotion (e.g. August 1), the CAIIB qualification obtaining as on March 31, of the year of promotion will taken into account. b) LINE ASSIGNMENT Satisfactory completion of line assignment in the position of Branch Manager or Manager of a Business Division for a minimum period of 2 years will be a condition precedent to promotion to MMG Scale III. In case, an officer has partly completed the line assignment/is in the process of completing the same, his case can be considered under list 'B' (as per extant guidelines). However, promotion in such a case will be effected only on satisfactory completion of the required period of line assignment. 9.2 Rural/Semi-Urban Service As per the guidelines of Government of India, an officer to become eligible for promotion to MMG Scale III should have completed 3 years service in a rural and/or semi-urban branch. 10. Zone of consideration All officers in MMG Scale II, who fulfil the service eligibility criteria as mentioned in paragraph 9.1 above, will constitute the zone of consideration for promotion to MMG Scale III. 11. Vacancies Promotion to MMG Scale III will be strictly on the basis of vacancies available in the circle with a view to enabling the eligible officers to be aware of~the level of completion, the approximate number of vacancies available/ likely to be available will be notified in advance. 12.1 Zone of selection All officers in MMG Scale II who form the zone of consideration will be evaluated on parameters (given in Annexure 1). On the basis of marks secured by the officers, the number of officers equal to I 1/2 times the number of vacancies, will constitute the zone of selection. 12.2 In case more than one officer secures marks equivalent to the cut-off mark, all such officers will be covered under the zone of selection even if the number exceeds the stipulated of 1 1/2 times, 13.1 Interview All officers constituting the zone of selection will be interviewed by an Interview Committee" 7. There is no dispute that the writ petitioner had successfully completed three years of service in MMG Scale II and acquired other requisites. There is no dispute that the writ petitioner had successfully completed three years of service in MMG Scale II and acquired other requisites. Thus he fulfils the requirement of para 9.1 (a) (i), Clause-10 provides that all officers in MMG Scale II who fulfils the above eligibility criteria mentioned in paragraph 9.1 will constitute the zone of consideration for promotion. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that the writ petitioner was in the zone of consideration for promotion to the MMG Scale-Ill. Para 12.1 quoted above provides that officers in MMG Scale II who form the zone of consideration will be evaluated on parameters prescribed in Annexure-1. The provisions in Annexure-1 relevant for promotion to MMG Scale-III are quoted below ;- "E. PROMOTION TO MMG SCALE III Reports PARAMETERS MAX. MARKS WEIGHTAGE 1. Performance (for last 6 years) 100 60 2. Reporting System (ACRs/PAS Raling) for 5 years) 3. Interview & Assessment on traits 30 20 20 20 100 100 Note : Minimum qualifying standard 55 Note: Performance, Confidential reports/ PAS Rating and CAIIB position to be assessed as on March 31, of the year of promotion." 8. There is no dispute with regard to the provisions of paragraph 12.1 that the zone of selection will be formed after evaluation on the basis of marks secured by each of the officers. The zone of selection shall consist of such numbers of officers not exceeding 11/2 times the number of vacancies available in MMG Scale-Ill. Thus, once placed in the zone of selection, the officer will be called for interview by the Interview Committee as per provisions in para 13.1 for final selection. It is, therefore, necessary to examine whether the case of the writ petitioner, already in the zone of consideration, was evaluated on the basis of parameters provided in Annexure-1. 9. First I will deal with the contention that the ACRs/performance report of the writ petitioner was recorded by officers not authorized by the Bank. The allegations in this behalf is made in paragraphs 27 to 30 of the writ petition. According to the writ petitioner, the guidelines (Annexure-10, 11 and 12) issued by the authority in this behalf have not been strictly followed. The allegations in this behalf is made in paragraphs 27 to 30 of the writ petition. According to the writ petitioner, the guidelines (Annexure-10, 11 and 12) issued by the authority in this behalf have not been strictly followed. His specific allegation is that Shri S. Paul, Respondent No. 8, wrote his annual confidential report for the period between 1.4.1989 to 31.3.1990 despite the fact that he had worked under him in the Khelmati Branch for about 23 days with effect from 8.3.1990 only. Before 8.3,1990, the petitioner was working at New Guwahati Branch and, as such, the Branch Manager of New Guwahati Branch should have written his ACR and not Shri Paul, Branch Manager of Khelmati Branch. It is further alleged that the appraisal system for the period between 1.4.1991 to 31.3.1992 was written by Shri A.K. Sheopuri, Assistant General Manager who became his controlling officer in the month of January, 1992 without consulting his Personal Appraisal System and graded him as Very low' although his performance was excellent all-through. The petitioner also attributed bias on the part of Shri Sheopuri and violation of the guidelines on his part. 10. Para 15.1 of the Circular dated March 25, 1991 provides for Self Appraisal Report as an annual feature coinciding with the reporting year for the purpose of consideration at the time of assessment of the performance of the officers. Annexure-10 provides for confidential report. The reporting authority of an officer in the rank of writ petitioner shall be the respective Branch Manager and the Reviewing Authority shall be the CRM/RM, as the case may be. It further provides that report has to be objective and free from prejudice or bias. 11. The petitioner's grievance is that Shri S. Paul, Respondent No. 8 Branch Manager of Khelmati Branch recorded his Annual Confidential Report for the period between 1.4.1989 to 31.3.1990 although petitioner had worked under Shri Paul in the Khelmati Branch for about 23 days and that too without taking into consideration the report for the earlier period. The petitioner was working in New Guwahati Branch with effect from 1986 till February, 1990. The Branch Manager, New Guwahati Branch was the controlling officer for the aforesaid period and, therefore Shri Paul was not aware of the performance of the writ petitioner for the period between 1.4.1989 and 31.3.1990. 12. The petitioner was working in New Guwahati Branch with effect from 1986 till February, 1990. The Branch Manager, New Guwahati Branch was the controlling officer for the aforesaid period and, therefore Shri Paul was not aware of the performance of the writ petitioner for the period between 1.4.1989 and 31.3.1990. 12. The Respondents inpara-21 oftheir affidavit-in-opposition submitted that Shri Paul, while writing the ACR, also considered the ACR and performance report written by the Branch Manager, Guwahati Branch and, as such, the report recorded by Shri Paul cannot but be accepted as true reflection of the petitioner's performance. The office file produced by the learned counsel for the Bank shows that the writ petitioner was posted as OJM, New Guwahati from 23.4.1986 to 10.2.1990 and for the said period of assessment of performance was recorded as good. Similarly for the period subsequent thereto, the performance of the officer has been assessed as good. That apart, the officer has been assessed as either good or excellent in respect of other matters. The ACR for 1989 shows that the petitioner was deeply involved with the work he was entrusted to do, besides being hard working and sincere. For the year 1990 the ACR given by Shri Paul shows that he has been performing his duties sincerely and there is nothing adverse against him. The respondent authority also graded him as good officer. In the ACR of 1991 there is nothing adverse against the petitioner and he has been assessed as a sincere officer in respect of general integrity and has been graded as excellent by the reviewing authority. However, in the year 1992 the Deputy Branch Manager in his confidential report observed that the petitioner made nominal contribution towards increasing deposits although in other respects he was found to be good. It is also not clear from the office file as well as from the pleadings whether this unfavourable remark was communicated to the petitioner. The documents in file do not show that Shri Paul before writing the ACR had consulted the performance of the writ petitioner for the period he was working at Guwahati. This alone is enough to conclude that this is a fit case where the ACR recorded by Shri Paul has to be reviewed. 13. The documents in file do not show that Shri Paul before writing the ACR had consulted the performance of the writ petitioner for the period he was working at Guwahati. This alone is enough to conclude that this is a fit case where the ACR recorded by Shri Paul has to be reviewed. 13. The ACRs and reports available in the file suggest that the writ petitioner is a capable officer and has been graded as a good officer. The office file submitted by Shri Kalita, learned counsel do not throw any light about the evaluation process of the performance of this officer except two loose sheets with marks secured. There is nothing on record to show that the evaluation has been made by applying the same yard stick along with others officers of the same grade. The office file contains some loose sheets without pagination and any note sheet. This is indicative of the perfunctory way a matter like promotion of a bank officer has been dealt with. Non­ availability of all the documents pertaining to the selection process with effect from 1.11.1992 create a doubt about fairness of the selection process. Hence, reconsideration of the petitioner's case with effect from 1.11.1992 appear to be inevitable. 14. The case at hand is of ouster of the writ petitioner at the time of evaluation of his performance for consideration for placing him in the zone of selection. But the materials in the office file do not inspire this Court to accept the submission of the learned counsel of the Bank that there is nothing wrong in the evaluation process. The ACRs mentioned above do not show anything adverse against the petitioner, rather he has been graded as good for his performance all these years. The only report given by the Deputy General Manager in 1992 has also not been communicated to him. Rejection of promotion totally based on confidential report without cross verification of the character roll or other records reflective of the merit and ability of the officer concerned is undoubtedly illegal. Likewise consideration of uncommunicated report without any opportunity to the officer concerned is not permissible under the law. The respondents could not show that the evaluation of performance of the writ petitioner has been made strictly in accordance with the guidelines, policy and parameters prescribed. Likewise consideration of uncommunicated report without any opportunity to the officer concerned is not permissible under the law. The respondents could not show that the evaluation of performance of the writ petitioner has been made strictly in accordance with the guidelines, policy and parameters prescribed. In such a case, undoubtedly the Court will invoke the powers to direct the authority to reconsider the matter for promotion. 15. I have carefully considered the law interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri V. Kashyap and another, Appellant -Vs- Indian Airlines and others, Respondents (AIR 1994 SC2128); Gurdial Singh Fijji, Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and others, Respondents ( AIR 1979 SC 1622 ) (Para 17), State Bank of India etc. Appellant - Vs- Kashinath Kher and others etc. Respondent ( AIR 1996 SC 1328 ) (Para 16) and in Union of India and others-Vs-N.R. Banerjee and others { (1997) 9 SCC 287 } and is of the opinion that on the factual matrix of the case at hand, direction for reconsideration will meet the ends of justice. 16. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authority to review the case of the writ petitioner afresh for promotion with effect from 1.11.1992. The ACRs/ APR be re-examined and re-written by authorised officer, if necessary, and, thereafter, the petitioner's case be evaluated for placement in the zone of selection. If in the process undertaken, the petitioner secures the cut-off mark and is found eligible for placement in the zone of selection, he be so placed and called for interview for the purpose of final selection. The entire exercise in this behalf be undertaken and completed within a period of three months from today. No cost.