Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1394 (GAU)

Sunil Misra v. State Bank of India

2017-10-31

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Sharma, learned senior counsel for the State Bank of India. 2. The petitioner has been serving in the grade of Junior Management Grade Scale-1 (JMGS-I) in the respondent-State Bank of India since his initial appointment on 12.8.2008. As per the circular dated 31.5.2013, a process was initiated for selection of the officers for promotion to various grades, which amongst others also included promotion from JMGS-I to MMGS-II, which indicates to be middle management Grade Scale II. The said promotion as per the circular dated 31.5.2013 was contemplated for the year 2013-14. As per the said circular, 618 vacancies were indicated in the merit channel for the year 2013-14 and 206 vacancies were indicated in seniority-cum-merit channel basis for the year 2013-14. 3. The petitioner had been considered for promotion as per the aforesaid circular under the category of merit channel basis. A fact to be noted is that although the notified vacancy for promotion on the merit channel to MMGSII was stated to be 618, but the actual number of eligible candidates found to be 512. Accordingly, it gives the indication that the number of suitable candidates were less than the available vacancies. 4. As per the e-Circular of the respondent-State Bank of India dated 22.4.2013, the respondent-authorities had taken a decision that as the number of vacant posts available is more than the number of eligible candidates, therefore, the existing procedure of conducting a written test would be done away for the year 2013-14. It was further provided in the e-Circular that for the year 2013-14, the promotion will be based on assignment appraisal reports, evaluation of suitability and personal interview. But subsequently, even the component of personal interview was done away and the entire assessment was made on the basis assignment appraisal reports and evaluation of suitability. As per the said e-Circular, a revised weightage of 50 marks were allotted for assignment appraisal report format and a weightage of 20 marks was assigned for component of evaluation of suitability. The component of assignment appraisal report format is to be understood to be the marks secured by the respective candidates as per the ACRs for the years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. The component of assignment appraisal report format is to be understood to be the marks secured by the respective candidates as per the ACRs for the years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. The further provision was that although the ACRs of the aforesaid 5 years would be considered, but the best marks obtained in four out of the said five years would be taken into consideration. The marks secured by the petitioner in the assignment appraisal report format for the aforesaid years are as follows: Year Marks obtained by the petitioner Page No. 2008-2009 96 90 to 95 2009-2010 93 96 to 107 2010-2011 73 108 to 118 2011-2012 86 124 to 131 2012-2013 85 132 to 141 5. Accordingly, in case of the petitioner, the marks obtained in the year 2010-11 is to be avoided and the marks obtained in the other four years is to be taken into consideration. Accordingly, in the assessment of component assignment appraisal report format, the petitioner secured about 45 marks out of the allotted 50 marks. But as regards the evaluation of suitability, it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent-authorities had not evaluated his suitability in the required manner to the effect that no mark has been given to the petitioner for the aforesaid component. 6. A further aspect of the matter is that in order to be qualified for the promotion to MMGS-II, the required cut off fixed by the authorities was 56 marks out of the total 70, i.e., 50+20. In such event, it is noticed that as the petitioner had secured 45 marks in component assignment appraisal report, he required a minimum of 11 marks in the evaluation of suitability, in order to be included in the zone selection. But the act on the part of the respondent-authorities in not giving any marks for the component evaluation of suitability had deprived the petitioner from availing the benefit of promotion in question. The petitioner also brings it to the notice of this court that AAEFs has two parts, namely, (A) Attributes based appraisal and (B) General comments (strength potential and suitability for promotion). Accordingly, Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned senior counsel submits that the AARFs also contains a component of assessment of suitability for promotion. 7. The petitioner also brings it to the notice of this court that AAEFs has two parts, namely, (A) Attributes based appraisal and (B) General comments (strength potential and suitability for promotion). Accordingly, Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned senior counsel submits that the AARFs also contains a component of assessment of suitability for promotion. 7. Accordingly, learned senior counsel states that in respect of the component general comments, the petitioner had secured 20 marks out of 20 for the year 2008-09,18 out of 20 for the year 2009 to 2010,16 out of 20 for the year 2011 to 2012,17 out of 20 for the year 2012-13. Accordingly, it is stated that on the average, the petitioner had secured between 16 and 20 for such appraisal, which is graded to be an excellent performance. It had further been brought to the notice of this court that as per the assignment appraisal report as on 31.3.2013, the petitioner had obtained 17 out of 20 as per the evaluation of the reporting authority and also as per the evaluation of the reviewing authority. It had also brought to the notice of this court that in the said assignment appraisal report, Shri Sanat Kr. Kandar, the then Deputy General Manager, Business & Operation was the reviewing authority, meaning thereby, that the said Deputy Manager had assessed the general comments of the petitioner, which also includes the component of his suitability for promotion at 17 out of 20. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the said concerned officer Shri Sanat Kr. Kandar, Deputy General Manager, Business & Operation was also the concerned officer, who was required to make an assessment of the evaluation of suitability of the petitioner, which carries 20 marks out of 70 marks, for which assessment had been made. Further it is the same concerned officer, being the Deputy General Manager, who had not given any marks to the petitioner for the said component of evaluation of suitability. In the affidavit-in-opposition, filed by the respondent-authorities through another officer, being the Chief Manager, Human Resource, a stand had been taken in paragraph 9 that the recommending authority did not award the petitioner any mark under head of “Evaluation of Suitability” and indicated that he was not found suitable for promotion and the absence of allotment of any marks meant that his score is zero under the said head. The said stand of the Chief Manager is self-contradictory in nature. On one hand, the Chief Manager states that the recommending authority did not award the petitioner any marks under the head evaluation of suitability, but on the other hand, the Chief Manager intends to clarify that by not giving him marks it was indicated that the petitioner was not found suitable for promotion and his score is construed to be zero under the said head. The said explanation of the Chief Manager is found to be unacceptable and devoid and any reason. 8. If no mark is allotted, it would be construed that no marks is allotted and it cannot be made to be an implication that the marks allotted was zero. However, even if it is to be construed that the marks allotted was zero, it has also to be noticed that the said evaluation of suitability was made by the same Deputy General Manager, who had given the petitioner 17 out of 20 while acting as the reviewing authority for the assignment appraisal report format for the period 2012-13. As the consideration was for the same period, which also included the year 2012 to 2013, it cannot be accepted that the same person who had earlier given 17 out of 20 had now intended to give zero out of 20 and that too without mentioning it clearly in the evaluation of suitability. It is also to be noticed that the concerned Deputy General Manager, Shri Sanat Kr. Kandar had also been impleaded as respondent No. 4 in the present writ petition by name and in spite of the notice having been served on him, he had opted not to appear before this court in order to provide his part of explanation. 9. In the aforesaid premises in the considered view of the court, the petitioner had not been duly evaluated by the respondent-authority in the component of evaluation of suitability as required under the e-Circular dated 22.4.2013 and a mere act of not giving marks cannot be construed that the marks allotted had been zero. 9. In the aforesaid premises in the considered view of the court, the petitioner had not been duly evaluated by the respondent-authority in the component of evaluation of suitability as required under the e-Circular dated 22.4.2013 and a mere act of not giving marks cannot be construed that the marks allotted had been zero. Further, absence of any reason being recorded for not giving the marks or allotting zero and further the very fact that the same concerned officer had earlier evaluated the petitioner by awarding him 17 out of 20 for the year 2012-13 also indicates that the respondent-authorities have not actually evaluated the petitioner for the evaluation of his suitability. 10. In such view of the matter, the writ petition stands disposed of by directing the respondent-State Bank of India to conduct and prepare an assessment of the evaluation of suitability of the petitioner as required under the e-Circular dated 22.4.2013. While doing so, the respondent-authorities shall act strictly upon the materials which confines to the four years out of the five previous years, for which the considerations were made. Further as an issue has developed as to whether the concerned Deputy General Manager, Shri Sanat Kr. Kandar had actually made the evaluation of suitability or not, as to whether he had actually allotted zero marks or not and more so in view of the fact that the said officer has been made respondent in the writ petition in his personal capacity and as the elements of natural justice would be involved in this further exercise, it would be appropriate if the evaluation of suitability is made by any other responsible officer of the State Bank of India of equivalent rank. 11. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months. In the event, after the exercise of assessing the evaluation of suitability is made and the same goes in favour of the petitioner, all other consequential actions as admissible to the petitioner under the law be carried out by the respondent-authorities.