Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2359 (ALL)

Priyanshu Arya v. State Of Bank Of India

2024-11-14

AJIT KUMAR

body2024
JUDGMENT : Ajit Kumar, J. 1. Petitioners here in this petition being employees of the bank were subjected to selection for promotion in the Officer cadre and have been selected and further upon their successful completion of training as Trainee Officer a question arose qua their posting as against posts falling in M.M.G.S.-II or of J.M.G.S. category. 2. The batch of the petitioners is of 2019 and their names find mention in the final select list prepared by the bank on 29.04.2019. All the petitioners were issued appointment order dated 7 th June, 2019, w.e.f., 29.04.2019 with the condition that they will remain on probation for a period of two years from 29.04.2019, however, their confirmation in Officer cadre would be subject to Clause-4 laid down in the appointment order itself qua satisfactory completion of in-service training. 3. The promotion rules qua parts for which petitioners were selected are contained in State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992. One of the conditions given in the appointment order was to the effect that confirmation of the training Officers after training will be done in terms of the 'extant policy' for confirmation of trainee officer as Junior Management Grade Scale-I (for short 'JMGS-I)/Middle Management Grade Scale-II (for short 'MMGS-II). Petitioners were required to submit their declaration form prescribed as Form-A, and which all the petitioners in fact had filled up. Petitioners completed their training and when it came to award of assignment of post and the designation qua the cadre, in the year 2021, then they have been given assignment and promotion in the cadre of JMGS-I as per the policy that was brought into effect only on 16 th December, 2020 for the first time. 4. Petitioners completed their training and when it came to award of assignment of post and the designation qua the cadre, in the year 2021, then they have been given assignment and promotion in the cadre of JMGS-I as per the policy that was brought into effect only on 16 th December, 2020 for the first time. 4. Earlier at the time of appointment, offer being given to the petitioners and consequential undertakings obtained from them, the policy enforced was of 23 rd April, 2019, which provided that those, who would secure 75% marks in the training upon appraisal of their work and training shall be considered for placement in MMGS-II, whereas under the new policy brought into force, w.e.f., 16 th December, 2020 a sealing cap was prescribed as 10% in total of a batch from top to be only confirmed in MMGS-II and rest will be confirmed in JMGS-I. Petitioners before this Court are aggrieved by this policy decision taken by the bank on 16 th December, 2020 repealing the earlier circular letter dated 23 rd April, 2019. 5. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioners have raised three grounds for assailing the new promotion scheme for seeking its quashment; The grounds as raised by learned Senior Advocate, are reproduced hereunder:- “(I). The selection and appointment was made of both 2018 and 2019 batch of trainee and probationary officers and under the terms and conditions prescribed in Circular Letter dated 23 rd April, 2019 and yet the respondents have arbitrarily changed the rules of placement by introducing a new scheme on 16 th December, 2020, which has seriously caused prejudice to the rights and interest of the petitioners. Mr. Khare argued that this amounted to change in rules of the game midway to the prejudice of the stake holders, which is not permissible in law; (II). Mr. Khare argued that this amounted to change in rules of the game midway to the prejudice of the stake holders, which is not permissible in law; (II). By introducing a new scheme through a circular letter impugned here in this petition, petitioners have stood discriminated against in two ways: (a) ..firstly, earlier the placement scheme for both the trainee officer and probationary officer was one dated 23 rd April, 2019 but while introducing the new scheme through Circular Letter dated 16 th December, 2020, the probationary officers have been left out and the trainee officers of 2019 batch have been made to suffer; and (b) ..secondly, while the 2018 batch trainee officers and probationary officers have been conferred upon with the benefit of Circular Letter dated 23 rd April, 2019 whereas their training also had continued almost parallel to that of the petitioners and ended in May, 2020 (junior trainee officer) and yet 2021 (probationary officer) batch have been saved and the petitioners have been made to suffer for this new scheme applicable to them. (III) The Circular Letter should have been given only prospective effect because the training of the petitioners was going on as trainee officer as per the scheme floated under the circular letter of 2019 which had a different placement scheme and now by giving retrospective effect to the new scheme the respondents have themselves violated the terms and conditions of the earlier appointment order and it is argued that the word and expression 'extant' used in Clause-5 of the appointment order would be indicative of ensuing policy as on the date of appointment order only. 6. Per contra, Sri Satish Chaturvedi raised following arguments; (1) The word 'extant' used in Clause-5 of the appointment order would mean the policy enforced at the time of completion of training and not the one which had already stood superseded as according to him, right for placement matures only upon confirmation and, therefore, Clause-2 and 5 have to be read together to interpret the word extant; (2) Sri Chaturvedi argued that placement of the petitioner in JMGS-I was justified one and petitioners cannot claim discrimination because different class of people cannot be treated alike. The petitioners being trainee officers cannot compete with the probationary officer in terms of benefit under scheme and the bank was fully justified in applying scheme for probationary officers differently than in respect of trainee officer. He also submits that two batches, i.e., 2018 and 2019 are different batches and since training of 2018 batch ended in May, 2020, they were benefited with the scheme then in force and since petitioners' training completed subsequently after the enforcement of the new scheme on 16 th December, 2020 they were benefited under the new scheme; (3) The scheme or policy cannot be termed as arbitrary or having no nexus with the object sought to be achieved as according to him sufficient pleadings have been raised in paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit to justify the scheme. He has further relied upon paragraph-15 onwards of the counter affidavit, which according to him, had not been denied. He has also tried to spell out reasons for which policy was changed. (4) He next argued that Courts and Tribunals would certainly be not interfering with the policy decision of the bank to introduce a particular scheme for its employee. The judicial review of such exercise of administrative power by the bank falls outside the scope of principles that govern the law of judicial review. In support of above arguments, Sri Chaturvedi relied upon following authorities:- (i) Deepak Agarwal and another vs. State of U.P. and others ; (2011) 6 SCC 725 , (ii) Union of India and others vs. Krishna Kumar and others ; (2019) 4 SCC 319 , (iii) State of U.P. vs. Karunesh Kumar and others ; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1035. 7. Rival submissions fall for consideration. 8. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by learned Advocates appearing for respective parties, I find it pertinent to reproduce the appointment order of one Priyanshu Arya- petitioner no. 1 as there is no dispute that identical set of orders were issued to other petitioners as well. The order is reproduced hereunder:- “Name: PRIYANSHU ARYA FF Index No: 6785182 State Bank of India, Mehroni Branch. 1 as there is no dispute that identical set of orders were issued to other petitioners as well. The order is reproduced hereunder:- “Name: PRIYANSHU ARYA FF Index No: 6785182 State Bank of India, Mehroni Branch. Dear Sir/Madam, APPOINTMENT AS TRAINEE OFFICER-2019 WITH EFFECT FROM 29.04.2019 We have pleasure in informing that you have been selected for appointment as Trainee Officer w.e.f. 29.04.2019 in the Bank and your service in the Bank will be governed by the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules 1992 provided you are medically fit and not debarred in terms of Award Staff Debarment Policy. 2. You will remain on probation for a period of 2 (two) years from the effective date of promotion i.e. 29.04.2019 and your confirmation in the Bank shall be subject to: a) Satisfactory completion of the in-service training during probation. b) Satisfactory completion of mandated e-lessons as may be prescribed by the bank from time to time. c) Satisfactory completion of online course available on the link www.learnwithflip.com followed by an online assessment. d) Satisfactory performance in the branches offices allotted, continous assessment during the probation period and completion of prescribed certificate courses. Unsatisfactory performance in the evaluation tests will be dealt with as per training schedule (uploaded on circle site under L & D Tab) and any other guidelines/instructions in force at the time of conduct of evaluation tests. 3. This offer is subject to completion of formalities required for your appointment as a Trainee Officer viz, Medical Examination etc. The offer of appointment will be withdrawn in case any of the aforesaid formalities are not completed satisfactorily. 4. Please also note that the training will be given as per the guidelines/training schedule issued by Strategic Training Unit. Corporate Centre on an all India basis and after confirmation, your services can be placed anywhere in India. 5. Your confirmation after training will be done in terms of extant policy for Confirmation of Trainee Officers as JMGS-I/MMGS-IL 6. You have to submit the declaration on Form 'A' (acknowledgment for receipt of copy of SBI Officers Service Rules). 7. Corporate Centre on an all India basis and after confirmation, your services can be placed anywhere in India. 5. Your confirmation after training will be done in terms of extant policy for Confirmation of Trainee Officers as JMGS-I/MMGS-IL 6. You have to submit the declaration on Form 'A' (acknowledgment for receipt of copy of SBI Officers Service Rules). 7. In token of your acceptance for appointment as Trainee Officer in the Bank, please return the duplicate copy of this letter duly signed by you within 2 weeks of receipt of this letter, failing which it will be presumed that you are not interested in accepting the appointment in the Bank and in that event, this offer of appointment will be withdrawn and cancelled.” (Emphasis added) 9. Upon going through the conditions of the appointment order, I find that Clause-2 makes confirmation of trainee officer subject to satisfactory completion of in-service training, e- lesson prescribed by the bank, satisfactory completion of online course and based upon the appraisal by way of continuous assessment of such trainee officer and performance in the evaluation test that is to be held of the trainee officer. 10. Clause-5 makes it very clear that confirmation after training will be done in terms of 'extant policy' which means one is to be confirmed as JMGS-I or MMGS-II as per the policy in force. It is not disputed to the parties that earlier at the time of issuance of appointment order dated 7 th June, 2019 the particular circular letter issued on 23 rd April, 2019 was in force. This policy lays down the training schedule for the purposes of two years training and different foundation courses during the training, e-learning programme etc. The scheme also provides for mid term review and also extension of probation. On the point of confirmation of officer after successful training, Clause-G prescribes a formula. Clause-G of the circular letter dated 23 rd April, 2019 is reproduced hereunder:- “G. Confirmation as Officers: i. Probationary Officers/Trainee Officers will be confirmed based on the overall score under continuous assessment. POs/TOs scoring minimum 50% marks (45% in case of SC/ST, PwD) under overall assessment shall be confirmed in JMGS-I ii. POs/TOs scoring 75% (70% for SC/ST candidates) and above in overall assessment shall be considered for placement in MMGS-II. iii. POs/TOs scoring minimum 50% marks (45% in case of SC/ST, PwD) under overall assessment shall be confirmed in JMGS-I ii. POs/TOs scoring 75% (70% for SC/ST candidates) and above in overall assessment shall be considered for placement in MMGS-II. iii. However, for confirmation in Scale-II passing of Credit and Branch Manager certification shall be mandatory (pre-requisite)” (Emphasis added) 11. Upon bare reading of the aforesaid clause, I find that all the probationary officers and trainee officers will be confirmed on over all assessment made continuously during the training period and one is to score 50% as probationary officer and trainee officer to be confirmed. Further Clause-II provides that those probationary officers or trainee officers who would be securing 75% would be placed in MMGS-II. The probationary officers and trainee officers both upon their over all assessment, would be liable to be placed in MMGS-II provided they secure more than 75% in general category and 70% in reserved category of SC/ST. Thus, it is clear that for both the probationary officer and the trainee officer, placement in MMGS-II was common as the scheme also treated both the probationary officer and trainee officer alike for their placement in MMGS-II. The scheme that was introduced on 16 th December, 2020 is in super-session to 2019 circular as the circular itself states vide paragraph-2 that bank authorities had reviewed its earlier decision of giving placement in MMGS-II by putting a cap upon the number of officers to be placed in that grade scale. The new scheme prescribes only for 10% of a batch size which means that top 10 of the probationary officer and trainee officers securing higher marks shall be placed in MMGS-II, subject to their fulfilling other necessary criterion. The provision has been made applicable to the probationary officers and trainee officers both, w.e.f., 2019 batch. The relevant paragraphs 1 and 2 necessary for the purpose are quoted hereunder:- “TRAINING AND CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT POLICY FOR PROBATIONARY OFFICERS AND TRAINEE OFFICERS POLICY FOR PLACEMENT IN MMGS-II ON CONFIRMATION As per training and continuous assessment policy for Probationary Officers and Trainee Officers, circulated vide Circular No. CDO/STU-TRAINING/3/2019-20 dated 23.04.2019, Officers securing 50% marks in aggregate (45% for SC, ST & PwD) over two years' assessment are confirmed in JMGS-1, while officers securing minimum 75% in aggregate (70% for SC/ST candidates) are considered for placement in MMGS-II. The policy has been reviewed and it has been decided, to cap the number of officers placed in MMGS-II to maximum of 10% of the batch size. The provision, to start with, will be applicable to Probationary Officers and Trainee of 2019 batches. Accordingly, notwithstanding any other provision in existing policy, top 10% of Probationary Officers and Trainee Officers scoring highest marks under evaluation parameters shall be considered for placement in MMGS-II, subject to their fulfilling all other necessary criteria.” (Emphasis added) 12. From the above, one thing comes out to be very clearly that this scheme came to be changed while the petitioners were under training and 2018 batch trainee officers were also under training, however, 2018 batch training ended in May, 2020 itself and so they were benefitted under the old scheme. So, it comes out that the scheme then in force at the time of appointment of the petitioners continued while they were sent on training but, the scheme was changed midway taking away the right of confirmation in MMGS-II upon securing 75% marks. The legal position is settled on the point that rules of the game cannot be changed midway to the prejudice of those who have set in under the existing rules. Now the petitioners even after securing 75% would not be getting any benefit of old scheme. The arguments advanced by learned Senior Advocate that altering the conditions of placement in a higher grade seriously prejudiced the rights and interest of petitioners and, therefore, it is arbitrary and discriminating one. Insofar as the discrimination plea taken by Mr. Khare is concerned though Mr. Chaturvedi has vehemently urged that the scheme had protected 2018 batch because scheme was being introduced in 2020 and so there was no prejudice caused to 2019 batch as there was a rationale behind this. Those, who had completed training should not be prejudiced and those, who had yet not completed training could safely be placed under this new scheme as a scheme in extent. In support of his submission Mr. Chaturvedi has argued that the word 'extant' used in 'Clause-5' of the appointment order means the policy enforced at the time of completion of training. 13. The argument of Mr. In support of his submission Mr. Chaturvedi has argued that the word 'extant' used in 'Clause-5' of the appointment order means the policy enforced at the time of completion of training. 13. The argument of Mr. Chaturvedi, that 'Claus-5' is to be read with Clause-II of the appointment order, in my considered view, does not make any difference, even if it is read together or separately, the reason being that completion of training and thereafter confirmation is one thing and placement as MMGS-II or JMGS-I is another thing. As per the policy and the scheme floated under circular of 2019 parameter for successful training does not get changed under the new scheme. Whoever secures as probationary officer and trainee officer 50% and as belonging to SC category 45%, would be confirmed. So the confirmation as an officer in the bank was only dependent upon successful training with 50% score but on the question of placement in a particular grade scale, the criterion fixed was, if one secured 75%, he would be placed in MMGS-II and who secured less than 75% will be placed in JMGS-I, was sought to be changed. There was a further relaxation for the candidates falling in SC/ST category both in matters of confirmation and placement in a particular grade scale. Thus, sofar as Clause-'2'of the appointment order is concerned, there cannot be any quarrel as to its interpretation. The only thing required to be considered is as to what interpretation is to be given to the word 'extant'. 14. In service jurisprudence, the terms and conditions contained in the appointment order are relevant to the time when contract is entered and terms and conditions laid in the appointment order are to be seen in context of relevant rules prevalent in the scheme at the time when contract is entered. Upon this analogy, if Clause-'5' of the appointment order is to be interpreted, it would mean the scheme in vogue at the time when appointment order was issued and not at the time when training is completed. Once the training is completed and the trainee officer or probationary officer secures 50% then he is automatically confirmed and it is not the case of the respondents herein that petitioners' probation was liable to be extended upon their not securing 50%. Once the training is completed and the trainee officer or probationary officer secures 50% then he is automatically confirmed and it is not the case of the respondents herein that petitioners' probation was liable to be extended upon their not securing 50%. So the only issue was that once they have successfully completed training whether they were to be placed in JMGS-I or MMGS-II. In my considered view as per Clause-'5' of the appointment order, petitioners deserved to be given benefit of scheme that was introduced in 2019 pursuant to which, they were sent for training. The word 'extant' means while in existence and service in common usage, the word 'extant' is used as simply to say something in existence. If the appointment order as per rule exists, training is conducted as per rules existing. The trainee officer is to be confirmed as per the rules subject to which training is offered and so their placement is also to be done as per the existing rules. Exists and existence means at the time of issuance of appointment order. Thus second submission advanced by Mr. Khare also holds merit. 15. On the point of policy to be made prospective and not retrospective, the general law is that unless the rule prescribes for its retrospective effect, it has to be applied prospectively but the impugned circular letter in this case makes the scheme operational retrospectively. Now it is to be seen as to whether the policy is arbitrary one, irrational and having no nexus with the object sought to be achieved or is a rational policy. Mr. Chaturvedi, learned Advocate has argued that rationale behind change of the scheme has been stated in paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit. Paragraph-6 is reproduce hereunder:- “6. That the policy for placement of selected meritorious Probationary Officers and Trainee Officers in MMGS-II was introduced in 2003 with aim to: a) Reduce average age profile in Middle & Senior Management grades, which was high during the time. b) Reward extraordinary and meritorious officers c) Minuscule numbers were selected for placement in higher grades in initial years (7 out of 506 in 2002-03; 26 out of 387 in 2007-08 etc.). (After confirmation results, for placement in MMGS-II were selected through a separate process of group discussion and interview. Candidates scoring more that 50% marks in confirmation test” 16. b) Reward extraordinary and meritorious officers c) Minuscule numbers were selected for placement in higher grades in initial years (7 out of 506 in 2002-03; 26 out of 387 in 2007-08 etc.). (After confirmation results, for placement in MMGS-II were selected through a separate process of group discussion and interview. Candidates scoring more that 50% marks in confirmation test” 16. According to the above noted paragraph, the object for introducing MMGS-II in 2003 was that average age profile was very high and it was thought to reward extra-ordinary and meritorious officer. The other reason was that earlier in minuscule member officers were selected for placement in higher grade in initial years as after selection a group discussion used to be held and so candidates would not be securing more than 60%. The reason assigned as far as to reduce average age profile previously in MMGS-II which was high during the earlier time does not appeal to reason at all. How does it make any difference to award benefit to 2018 batch and deny the same to 2019 batch to achieve the said object. Insofar as, the reward is concerned, this object should always hold the field because any trainee officer, who has secured higher marks should always be rewarded and reward points and consequential placement in higher grade will not only boost their moral to make the functioning of the bank better and smooth but will also make people create as aforesaid work culture for better future prospects Insofar as the reason assigned that now large number of candidates are being selected because of the change in the policy during the recent years, it would have been better for the bank to have introduced a stricter condition to qualify and attain 70% score than to suddenly change the scheme to the prejudice of 2019 batch. Moreover, this scheme should have been introduced prospectively to save 2019 batch already under training. Thus, the rationale behind the scheme does neither appeal to reason, nor to logic, in the given context of the case, where 2019 batch has been prejudiced by changing the rules of promotion midway. Mr. Moreover, this scheme should have been introduced prospectively to save 2019 batch already under training. Thus, the rationale behind the scheme does neither appeal to reason, nor to logic, in the given context of the case, where 2019 batch has been prejudiced by changing the rules of promotion midway. Mr. Chaturvedi had also argued that in paragraphs-15 and 16, it has been categorically stated that it is policy decision of the bank in consonance with Chapter-4, Rule-1 of S.B.I.O.S.R, 1992 and since amendments have stood approved then such prerogative exercise by the employer should not be interfered with. In my view, if any policy or scheme that interferes with the rights of an incumbent officer and turns out to be arbitrary and discriminating and irrational and fails on the testing anvil of article 14 of the constitution, it deserves to be struck down. There is no quarrel about the principle of law laid down in the authorities cited by Mr. Chaturvedi but the law has to be applied in the setting of facts of the case, a judgment is what it decides Inderpreet Singh Khalan and others vs. State of Punjab and others ; (2006) SCC 356 . The prerogative of the bank to frame the scheme or a policy while may not ordinarily require to be interfered with but whenever the plea of discrimination and arbitrariness is taken then it can become subject matter of judicial review. Even from the supplementary counter affidavit that has been filed by Mr. Chaturvedi, I find it to be admitted that 2018 batch training continued till May, 2020 and probationary officer's training continued till January, 2021. While in the case of former, it could be said that scheme had not been changed but in the case of later, it had been changed. The point argued by Mr. Chaturvedi that different class of people cannot be classified as a one to question the scheme, does not appear to be correct either because in the context of present case in the scheme of 2019 both the probationary officers and training officers were to be placed in MMGS-II, if they secured 75% during the training and the new scheme also says that 2019 batch probationary officers and the trainee officers may not be excluded but 2018. Thus both categories of Officer and treated alike and yet probationary officers have been given benefit even though they completed their training after the introduction of new scheme. It is relevant here to reproduce paragraph-4 of the writ petition, which runs as under:- “4. That the present petition is preferred for issues writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling the record and quashing the impugned order dated 16.12.2020 containing in circular number CDO/STU-TRAINING/8/2020-21 whereby a cap of 10% of the batch has been placed on placement in MMGS-II on successful completion of training as against no such cap laid down earlier and also issue mandamus for a direction to the respondents to desist from discriminating between the Probationary Officers and Trainee Officers, who followed the same training and assessment raging in regard to placement in MMGS-II on successful completion of training of the petitioner” 17. The above pleadings have been met in paragraph 34 of the counter affidavit which is as under:- “That the contents of paragraph 14 of the writ petition are misconceived hence denied. It is denied that there is any illegality in the action of the bank in the manner and method of placement as sought to be challenged by the petitioners. It is denied that there is any illegality in placing the cap of 10% or that the same infringes the constitutional provisions laid down in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the Probationary Officers and Trainee Officers 2018 were treated alike. Modified provisions are applicable to Probationary Officers 2019 batch and Trainee Officers 2019 (petitioners) . Comparison of Trainee Officers 2019 with Probationary Officers 2018 is a mis-statement of facts. It rather amounts to a claim of more beneficial treatment over Probationary Officers of the same batch. As far as power to carry the changes is concerned necessary reply has already been given in the preceding paragraphs and is not repeated for the sake of brevity.” 18. Interestingly vide paragraphs-8 & 9 of the supplementary counter affidavit, bank itself had averred thus:- “8. As far as power to carry the changes is concerned necessary reply has already been given in the preceding paragraphs and is not repeated for the sake of brevity.” 18. Interestingly vide paragraphs-8 & 9 of the supplementary counter affidavit, bank itself had averred thus:- “8. That it is pertinent to mention that after the circular dated 16 th December, 2020, as per the policy decision taken by the bank and other circular dated 19.05.2021 has been issued and thereafter, as matter of policy provision of placement in MMGS-II has been done away with and with the issuance of circular dated 19.05.2021 no Trainee Officer or Probationary Officer is allowed the placement in MMGS-II. All are to be confirmed in JMGS-I. This circular is effective for the Trainee Officer or Probationary Officer batch 2020. 9. That as far as Probationary Officer, 2018 batch is concerned it is submitted that their result was declared on 19.10.2018 and training started on 07.01.2019 and completed on 0.7.01.2019. It is submitted that Officers selected in a year are treated as part of the year batch. It is established process since beginning. Selection result for Probationary Officer, 2018 was declared on 19.10.2018. The Probationary Officers referred are of 2018 Batch.” 19. In view of the above, the scheme also turns out to be arbitrary and discriminatory because 2018 batch probationary officers have been placed in MMGS-II. I may observe here that while the bank may exercise its discretion in introducing a particular scheme as per its need and requirement but a scheme shall have to pass test of Article 14 of the constitution. It is established in two cases that the bank has given placement to the probationary officer, who completed training in January, 2021 despite placing interpretation of word extant in Clause-'5' of the appointment order, to mean that the policy enforced at the time of completion of training. The question is, had bank really applied this interpretation? Had the bank meant it to be so, it would not have given placement to probationary officers, who had completed training in January, 2021, in MMGS-II. This makes the entire act and conduct of the bank discriminatory, hence it cannot be approved of. The question is, had bank really applied this interpretation? Had the bank meant it to be so, it would not have given placement to probationary officers, who had completed training in January, 2021, in MMGS-II. This makes the entire act and conduct of the bank discriminatory, hence it cannot be approved of. I may further observe here that the bank has a discretion of introducing a scheme for placement of officers in a particular grade scale and provide criterion for the same but it certainly cannot make it applicable retrospectively to the prejudice of those, whose training had already started under the old scheme to be placed in a particular grade scale on the basis of scheme that was then in force. Had the bank would have made it prospective from 2020 onwards, then there would have been no controversy at all. 20. In a recent decision in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak and others vs. Rajasthan High Court and others ; 2024 SCC Online SC 3184 , the constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court has observed that “once the recruitment process has commenced, the State or its instrumentalities cannot tinker with the "rules of the game insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria is concerned, the Court vide paragraph-9 had observed that 'recruitment rules in theory could be either prospective or retrospective' subject of course to the rule of non arbitrariness. However, in the context of employment under the intrumentalities of the State which is normally regulated by sub ordinate legislation, such rules cannot be made retrospectively unless specifically authorized by some constitutionally valid statute.” The Court further observed that vide paragraph-10 that “changing of “rules of game” either mid stream or after the game is played, is an aspect of retrospective law making power, which, cannot be permitted.” The Court observed that the 'game' is the process of selection and appointment. Courts have consistently frowned upon tinkering process as commences. 21. In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The scheme dated 1th December, 2020, floated by the bank for placement of trainee officers and probationary officers in MMGS-II to the extent it has been made application to the 2018 trainee officer batch is held to be arbitrary and discriminatory and void. 21. In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The scheme dated 1th December, 2020, floated by the bank for placement of trainee officers and probationary officers in MMGS-II to the extent it has been made application to the 2018 trainee officer batch is held to be arbitrary and discriminatory and void. Petitioners' claim for placement now shall be considered by the bank in MMGS-II as per their score which they have scored upon completion of their training under the promotion scheme of 2019. Appropriate order shall be passed in that regard and a consequential notional seniority shall be accorded to them. Petitioners however, shall be entitled to pay scale of MMGS-II, w.e.f. the date they are placed in this scale, however, shall be entitled to notional benefit in terms of increment, pay grade and pay scale as their juniors might have now been drawing. Appropriate orders and directions in this regard shall be passed within a maximum period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.