Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 360 (KAR)

N. Veeraiah v. State Bank of Mysore

2015-03-31

ARAVIND KUMAR

body2015
ORDER : Aravind Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri P.H. Raghupathy, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Sri Gururaj Kulkarni for petitioner and Sri S.V. Narasimhan, learned Advocate appearing for respondents. Perused the case papers. 2. Petitioner is seeking for quashing of the order/endorsement dated 19.09.2007 vide Annexure-V and for further direction to respondents to declare that petitioner is promoted to Middle Management Grade Scale III (MMGS III) with effect from 01.08.1985 and consider his claim for further promotion to Top Management Grade Scale VII (TMGS VII) by granting all consequential benefits by holding that petitioner is also entitled to promotion along with others as per Annexure-F. 3. Brief facts leading to filing of this petition according to petitioner are as under: "Petitioner joined the services of respondent-Bank on 06.06.1972 as a Trainee Officer on contract basis and thereafter was absorbed in permanent cadre with effect from 30.06.1976. It is contended that petitioner was absorbed as Grade-II Officer and has served in various branches of respondent-Bank. Petitioner came to be promoted by order dated 20.09.1980 as per Annexure-A from Grade-II to the post of Grade-I Officer. Petitioner was placed in Junior Management Grade Scale - I. The post of Technical Officers (Agriculture) was upgraded as Middle Management Grade Scale - II with effect from 01.08.1982 which was pursuant to Circular No. 332 issued by the Head Office which is at Annexure-C and there was dispute regarding reckoning petitioner's services for the purpose of promotion and seniority and as such, petitioner had approached this Court in W.P. No. 16890/1981 seeking for a direction to reckon the petitioner's service with effect from 20.06.1972 and to fix the seniority. Said writ petition came to be allowed by order dated 10.03.1987 as per Annexure-D. Even thereafter request of petitioner was not considered for promotion. It is contended by petitioner that Rules regarding the promotion from MMG Scale-II to MMG Scale-III was found as per Circular No. 401 dated 26.12.1987 to which promotion petitioner was entitled and for reasons best known, his claim was not considered for promotion. It is contended by petitioner that Rules regarding the promotion from MMG Scale-II to MMG Scale-III was found as per Circular No. 401 dated 26.12.1987 to which promotion petitioner was entitled and for reasons best known, his claim was not considered for promotion. It is also contended in the writ petition that petitioner's performance was excellent and denial of promotion amounts to violation of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and Officers junior to petitioners were promoted from MMG Scale II to MMG Scale III on 30.03.1988 vide Annexure-F which came to be protested by petitioner and also cause of the petitioner came to be espoused by the Bank Officers Association as per representation dated 23.06.1992 - Annexure-G. On these grounds amongst other grounds, petitioner has contended that he was perforced to approach this Court yet again in W.P. No. 34696/2001 seeking prayer now sought for in the present writ petition and this Court having considered rival contentions, by order dated 16.03.2007 directed the respondents to re-consider claim of the petitioner and also permitted the petitioner to submit a detailed consolidated representation and pursuant to the said direction, petitioner submitted representation on 14.04.2007 (Annexure-U) which came to be considered by respondent and by order dated 19.09.2007 (Annexure-V) same has been rejected. As such, it is contended that relief sought for by the petitioner for promotion having been unjustly refused by respondent. Hence, petitioner is seeking for the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition." 4. Reiterating the grounds urged in support of the prayer sought for in the writ petition, it is contended that respondent has not acted on the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No. 34696/2001 on 16.03.2007 in proper perspective and as such, petitioner has been deprived of time bound promotion which was extended to other officers similarly placed. Non consideration of the representation dated 14.04.2007 effectively by the respondent has resulted in great injustice to the petitioner. Hence, it is prayed that relief sought for in the writ petition be granted. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the following two judgments: "(1) AIR 2010 SC 1682 , UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER v. HEMRAJ SINGH CHAUHAN & OTHERS (2) (1982)1 KAR.L.J. 131 , SHAIKH MEHABOOB v. RAILWAY BOARD" 5. Hence, it is prayed that relief sought for in the writ petition be granted. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the following two judgments: "(1) AIR 2010 SC 1682 , UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER v. HEMRAJ SINGH CHAUHAN & OTHERS (2) (1982)1 KAR.L.J. 131 , SHAIKH MEHABOOB v. RAILWAY BOARD" 5. Per contra, Sri S.V. Narasimhan, learned Advocate appearing for respondents would support the order passed by respondents rejecting the claim of petitioner and contends that claim of the petitioner has been considered as per the extant Rules of respondent-Bank and having found that petitioner had participated in the interview for promotion on earlier occasion and had been unsuccessful and though option was given to petitioner to change his cadre from Specialist Officer cadre to general cadre, he did not opt for same and as such, respondents have rightly rejected claim of the petitioner for extending him promotion with effect from 01.08.1985. Hence, he seeks for rejection of writ petition. 6. Facts having already been narrated, same is not repeated since it would be repetition and only such facts which would be germane for considering rival contentions raised herein above is delved upon. 7. Right of an eligible employee to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. There cannot be any dispute with regard to this proposition. There cannot be any right to be promoted but an employee has right for his name being considered for promotion if he is eligible under the Rules. Keeping these principles in mind, when the facts on hand are examined, it would indicate that petitioner herein had been appointed as Specialist Officer (Technical Officer/Rural Development Officer) with effect from 26.06.1972. He was promoted to MMGS-II on 01.08.1982 and had attended the interview for being promoted to MMGS-III on 29.03.1988 which was conducted for filling up of vacancies of 1985. Petitioner had opted to continue in the Specialist Officer cadre in response to the circular issued by the respondent - Bank on 19.05.1988. Petitioner came to be promoted from MMGS - II to MMGS-III on 01.08.1990 and the probation for the said post was for one year from 09.04.1991. Petitioner had opted to continue in the Specialist Officer cadre in response to the circular issued by the respondent - Bank on 19.05.1988. Petitioner came to be promoted from MMGS - II to MMGS-III on 01.08.1990 and the probation for the said post was for one year from 09.04.1991. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that all appointments and promotions to the Officers' Grades would be made by the competent authority as per the policy or guidelines namely, as per Regulation-14 of the Officers' Service Regulations (OSR). Petitioner having been appointed as Specialist Officer namely, Technical Officer (Agriculture) was posted to the branches where agricultural advances were predominant and technical exposure were required to render necessary assistance in the follow up and supervision of such advances. Services of the petitioner and similarly placed persons were regularized as Field Officers/Managers of Agricultural Banking Division of the Bank. 8. Respondent-Bank in the year 1987 adopted the promotion policy in respect of the Officers in general cadre for their promotion from MMGS - II to MMGS-III on ad hoc basis and as such, advise came to be issued to all the Officers of the Bank by Circular No. 401 dated 26.12.1987. However, in respect of Rural Development Officers, Executive Committee of the Bank in its meeting held on 23.03.1988 approved promotion policy to those officers on ad hoc basis on the same lines as applicable to the general cadre of Officers of equivalent seniority at item No. 29 of its Agenda. On the basis of said promotion policy adopted by the Bank, all Rural Development Officers were entitled to be considered for promotion. As such, petitioner had also been called for interview which was held on 29.03.1988 and petitioner was found not fit for promotion. Whereas, other Rural Development Officers who were found to be fit were promoted and were advised accordingly by Circular No. 112 dated 30.03.1988. This was the first stage at which petitioner was made aware of being denied the promotion or in other words, reason assigned as to why petitioner was not granted promotion and it was well within the knowledge of petitioner. To put it other way, juniors or the Officers who were working along with petitioner as Rural Development Officers were promoted after conducting the interview in the year 1988. To put it other way, juniors or the Officers who were working along with petitioner as Rural Development Officers were promoted after conducting the interview in the year 1988. Yet, petitioner did not raise his little finger and did not challenge the promotion which took place in the year 1988. 9. Be that as it may. Respondent - Bank subsequently adopted the policy to absorb Rural Development Officers also into its general officers' cadre and as such, an option is said to have been extended to all the Rural Development Officers by issuance of Circular No. 126 dated 19.05.1988 whereunder it was notified that posts of Rural Development Officers working in the respondent-Bank would be merged with the general cadre of Officers. However, an option was given to such Rural Development Officers who did not opt to merge with the general cadre, would also be permitted to retain career path in specialist cadre only. Petitioner undisputedly did not opt to get merged with the general cadre of Officers and opted to continue in the Specialist cadre only. Thereafter respondent - Bank in the year 1990 by issuance of circular dated 195 dated 26.07.1990 adopted yet another promotion policy for Specialist Officers to MMGS-II, MMGS-III and SMGS-IV and indicated thereunder as per the vacancies arising out of the categorization of posts of Specialist Officers would be filled up by promotion. Accordingly, Executive Committee of the respondent - Bank categorized the post of Rural Development Officer in the Development Manager, Agricultural Department from MMGS-II to MMGS-III with effect from 01.08.1990. Since said post was categorized with effect from 01.08.1990, the petitioner who was working in the said post was called for interview of this categorized post in the year 1990 and the selection committee having found him suitable for promotion, promoted him to the next higher grade i.e., MMGS-III grade with effect from 01.08.1990. 10. It is thereafter in the year 1995 post of Rural Development Officer was categorized from MMGS-III to SGMS-IV with effect from 01.04.1995 and after such categorization to the next higher grade, petitioner has been called for interview on 29.11.1995 in which interview the Committee found that he was not suitable for promotion. 10. It is thereafter in the year 1995 post of Rural Development Officer was categorized from MMGS-III to SGMS-IV with effect from 01.04.1995 and after such categorization to the next higher grade, petitioner has been called for interview on 29.11.1995 in which interview the Committee found that he was not suitable for promotion. Thereafter he has been again called for interview on 04.12.1996 which was not attended by petitioner and subsequently when interview was held on 22.04.1998 to fill up the vacancy in the year 1997 and which was being carried over since 1995, Selection Committee found that petitioner was not suitable and another candidate by name Sri Sathyanarayana Reddy found suitable was promoted. This is the second stage in which petitioner knew about he having not been selected by the interview committee and which gave him cause of action to challenge the selection of Sri Sathyanarayana Reddy which he did not do. Thus, petitioner having kept quite all these years cannot now be permitted to contend that his promotion to MMGS-III had to be considered in the year 1985 instead of 1990. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that reasons assigned by respondent-Bank to petitioner by endorsement/order dated 19.09.2007 - Annexure-V cannot be held as either contrary to the regulations governing promotion or the extant Rules. In that view of the matter, writ petition is hereby dismissed. Rule discharged. Costs made easy.