# ALL INDIA STATE BANK OFFICERS FEDERATION AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1996] Supp. 6 S.C.R. 255
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1996-09-13
- **Bench:** T.S. Verma, B.N. Kirpal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/all-india-state-bank-officers-federation-and-ors-v-union-of-india-and-ors-14721
- **Pages:** 30

## Headnote

Service Law :
State Bank of India Officers (Detenni11atio11 of Tenns and Conditions
of Service) Order, 1979: Paragraph 17.
B
c
Promoti01r-Ca11didates--From post of Senior Managemeizt Grade
Scale V to Top Executive Grade Scale VI in State Bank of India-Zone of
consideration--Omission to limit number of candidate-Validity
of--Origiizally minimum two years' se1vice in the previous grade/scale required D
and zone of co11sideration limited to three to four times the number of
vacancies-However, promotional policy dated 7.3.1989 discontinued limitatio11 of zone of consideration a11d raised mi11imum se1vice from two to four
years-Held: promotio11al policy not illegaf-State Ba11k of I11dia (Supe1vising
Staff) Se1vice Rules, 197~State Bank of1ndia Act, 195~Ss. 17 and 43.
Promoti01r-Candidates-From Senior Management Grade Scale V to
E
Top Executive Grade Scale VI-Eligibility of-Promotional polity dated
7.3.1989-Modification in nonns of-Held: promotional policy not arbitrary-Eligibility 1101111s made on realistic basis-To choose best talents to
man critical positions-Cozm could not sit in appeal to decide what was good F
for Bank.
Promotion-From Senior Management Grade Scale V to Top Executive Grade Scale VI-Inte1view-Candidates-Number of-Guidelines dated
23.6.1986 issued under Regn. 17-Limited 11umber of candidates to be interviewed to three to four times of vacancies-Applicability of-Held : applicable G
011/y to Nationalised Banks and not to State Bank of l11dia--Furthe1111ore,
said guidelines could not be regarded as directions under Sectio11 18 of State
Bank of India Act-Govemment of India, Mi11istry of Fi11a11ce Guidelines
dated 23.6.1986-0fficers Se1vice Regulations Regn. 17-Banking Regulation
Act; 1949.
H
255
A
B
256
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
Pronwtion--4:andidate~From Senior Management Grade Scale V to
Top Executive Grade Scale VI-Eligibility of-Promotional policy dated
7.3.1989-Modification in 1wmzs of-Made by Central Board of State Bank
of India-Allegedly motivated to benefit certain candidate~onditions
precedent for such allegations to succee~Held : person making such allegation must conclusively show that intended benefici01ies wielded influence over
all members of Board-Neither this condition fulfilled nor Chairnian or
Directors impleade~Hence, petitioners could not be allowed to raise said
allegations of mala [ides.
Promotion--4:andidate~From Senior Management Grade Scale V to
C
Top Executive Grade Scale VI--4:onsideration of past record~Absence of
unif 01111 appraisal system-Annual Confidential Rep01ts-Replaced by assignment appraisal system throughout the Bank not simultaneously but in a
phased manner from 1986 to 1990-Consequently, in case of some officers
annual confidential rep01ts considered while in case of others assignment
D appraisal reports considered-Held: absence of wzifornz appraisal system did
not vitiate selection--4:onsideration of two types of repolts did not result in
discrimination--4:onstitution of India, 1950, Alt. 14.
Promotion--4:andidate~From Senior Management Grade Scale V to
Top Executive Grade Scale VI-Past record for period which exceeded minE imum length of service in post immediately below--Co11sideration
of-Whether vali~Held : consideration of peifomzance of six years while
minimum service for eligibility was four years did not cause prejudice to any
officer.
Promotion--4:andidate~From Senior Management Grade Scale V to
F
Top Executive Grade Scale VI--lnterview-Prescribed minimum 60% marks
as eligibility criterion-Validity of-Held : inte1view marks represented only
25% of aggregate mar~No exaggerated weightage given to marks prescribed
in interview.
G
Practice and Procedure :
Affidavit-False allegation in--4:hallenge of promotion to Top Executive Grade Scale VI in State Bank of India in writ petition by petitione,-
F ederation-ln rejoinder affidavit, the then President of petitioner-Federation deposed that in fact only V, an officer of B01zk, had allotted marks on
H the ind

## Text

_Characters 0–39,823 of 71,891. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39823 for what follows._

ALL INDIA STATE BANK OFFICERS FEDERATION AND ORS.
A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 13, 1996
[.T.S. VERMA AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.]
Service Law :
State Bank of India Officers (Detenni11atio11 of Tenns and Conditions
of Service) Order, 1979: Paragraph 17.
B
c
Promoti01r-Ca11didates--From post of Senior Managemeizt Grade
Scale V to Top Executive Grade Scale VI in State Bank of India-Zone of
consideration--Omission to limit number of candidate-Validity
of--Origiizally minimum two years' se1vice in the previous grade/scale required D
and zone of co11sideration limited to three to four times the number of
vacancies-However, promotional policy dated 7.3.1989 discontinued limitatio11 of zone of consideration a11d raised mi11imum se1vice from two to four
years-Held: promotio11al policy not illegaf-State Ba11k of I11dia (Supe1vising
Staff) Se1vice Rules, 197~State Bank of1ndia Act, 195~Ss. 17 and 43.
Promoti01r-Candidates-From Senior Management Grade Scale V to
E
Top Executive Grade Scale VI-Eligibility of-Promotional polity dated
7.3.1989-Modification in nonns of-Held: promotional policy not arbitrary-Eligibility 1101111s made on realistic basis-To choose best talents to
man critical positions-Cozm could not sit in appeal to decide what was good F
for Bank.
Promotion-From Senior Management Grade Scale V to Top Executive Grade Scale VI-Inte1view-Candidates-Number of-Guidelines dated
23.6.1986 issued under Regn. 17-Limited 11umber of candidates to be interviewed to three to four times of vacancies-Applicability of-Held : applicable G
011/y to Nationalised Banks and not to State Bank of l11dia--Furthe1111ore,
said guidelines could not be regarded as directions under Sectio11 18 of State
Bank of India Act-Govemment of India, Mi11istry of Fi11a11ce Guidelines
dated 23.6.1986-0fficers Se1vice Regulations Regn. 17-Banking Regulation
Act; 1949.
H
255
A
B
256
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
Pronwtion--4:andidate~From Senior Management Grade Scale V to
Top Executive Grade Scale VI-Eligibility of-Promotional policy dated
7.3.1989-Modification in 1wmzs of-Made by Central Board of State Bank
of India-Allegedly motivated to benefit certain candidate~onditions
precedent for such allegations to succee~Held : person making such allegation must conclusively show that intended benefici01ies wielded influence over
all members of Board-Neither this condition fulfilled nor Chairnian or
Directors impleade~Hence, petitioners could not be allowed to raise said
allegations of mala [ides.
Promotion--4:andidate~From Senior Management Grade Scale V to
C
Top Executive Grade Scale VI--4:onsideration of past record~Absence of
unif 01111 appraisal system-Annual Confidential Rep01ts-Replaced by assignment appraisal system throughout the Bank not simultaneously but in a
phased manner from 1986 to 1990-Consequently, in case of some officers
annual confidential rep01ts considered while in case of others assignment
D appraisal reports considered-Held: absence of wzifornz appraisal system did
not vitiate selection--4:onsideration of two types of repolts did not result in
discrimination--4:onstitution of India, 1950, Alt. 14.
Promotion--4:andidate~From Senior Management Grade Scale V to
Top Executive Grade Scale VI-Past record for period which exceeded minE imum length of service in post immediately below--Co11sideration
of-Whether vali~Held : consideration of peifomzance of six years while
minimum service for eligibility was four years did not cause prejudice to any
officer.
Promotion--4:andidate~From Senior Management Grade Scale V to
F
Top Executive Grade Scale VI--lnterview-Prescribed minimum 60% marks
as eligibility criterion-Validity of-Held : inte1view marks represented only
25% of aggregate mar~No exaggerated weightage given to marks prescribed
in interview.
G
Practice and Procedure :
Affidavit-False allegation in--4:hallenge of promotion to Top Executive Grade Scale VI in State Bank of India in writ petition by petitione,-
F ederation-ln rejoinder affidavit, the then President of petitioner-Federation deposed that in fact only V, an officer of B01zk, had allotted marks on
H the individual promotion appraisal f onns on basis of which list of candidates
ALL INDIA STATE BANK OFFICERS FEDERATION v. U.O.l.
257
-
prepared and signed by three members of Screening Committee-Supreme A
Court directed the then President to verify on affidavit the said allegation
specifying precise source of inf onnation-Supreme Co wt also wamed that if
allegation was found false that also would have its own consequences-President filed additional affidavit deposing that he derived inf onnation from V
himself and another officer of Bank-Cliief General Manager (Personnel) of B
'
Bank as well as two officen~ refe1Ted to in said additional affidavit, filed their
own affidavits denying said allegation-Fwthennore, allegation not substantiated by photo copies of appraisal fonns of promotees-Held : In such
circumstances, said allegation in rejoinder affidavit of the then President
absolutely false-Tiie then President already apologised to Supreme Cowt for
some mis-statements in an earlier affidavit-Supreme Court expressed its c
disapproval and anguish over that matter-But did not dismiss petition in
view of off er of Bank to contest the case on nwits-Since the then President
once again made false statements in his affidavit despite said observations of
Supreme Cowt, he dese1ved to be prosecuted-Howeve1; since he was no
longer President of Federation and since prosecution might take fwther time, D
instead of direct~ng him to be prosecuted, the petition dismissed with costs,
quantified at Rs. 20,000 of which Rs. 10,000 to be paid by him personal-
•
ly-Constitution of India, 1950, A1t. 32-'-Judicial strictures.
The petitioner-Federation filed a writ petition before this Court
E
challenging the new promotional policy framed by the respondent-Bank on
7 3.1989 relating to the promotion from the post of Senior Management
Grade Scale V' to Top Executive Grade Scale VI. The said Policy was
framed by the Central Board under paragraph 17 of the State Bank of
India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order,
1979 which had been framed under Section 43 of the State Bank of India F
Act, 1955. The State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules, 1975
framed under Section 43 of the Act, dealt with various grade and scales of
officers, conduct rules, salary, seniority, promotion, etc. From 1975 onwards the Central Board approved a promotion policy under which assignment appraisals and interviews were made the two components of the G
selection procedure. According to the petitioners zone of consideration
from amongst the eligible officers had been varying from time to time.
From 8.6.1982 onwards two years' service in the previous grade/scale
became a condition of eligibility for promotion but the zone of considera-
.,
tion was limited to three to four times the number of vacancies. In the
policy framed on 7.3.1989 the Central Board made three modifications H
\
258
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A which were as follows :
(i) The minimum service in the previous grade/scale for being
eligible for promotion was raised to four years.
(ii) The maximum marks for interview and performance appraisal
B were refixed as 50 and 150 instead of 100 and 100 respectively.
(iii) The limitation of the zone of consideration was discontinued.
From 1986 onwards the system of writing of annual confidential
reports was substituted by a new appraisal system in which the appraisee
c got an opportunity of writing self appraisal. However, this new system was
not introduced throughout the Bank simultaneously but was completed
in a phased manner only in 1990.
The main contention of the petitioners was that it was unreasonable
D
not to limit the zone of consideration to three to fqur times of the number
of vacancies. It was further contended by the petitioners that the change
in the policy was completely arbitrary and without any reason; that the
guidelines dated 23.6.1986 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of
Finance under Regulation 17 of the Officers Service Regulations menE
tioned that the number of persons to be considered for promotion from
one scale to another should normally be restricted to three or four times
the number of vacancies; that the promotion policy should not have been
in conflict with the said guidelines; that the change in policy in 1989 was
motivated with a view to benefiting respondents 4 and 5; that uniform
system of appraising the work was not followed in that in case of some
F
employees annual confidential reports were considered and in case of
others assignment appraisal reports were considered which had caused
prejudice to a section of the employees of the Bank; that with the change
in the eligibility norm to four years instead of the actual five/six service
there was a need for reducing the consideration of period of appraisal from
G
six years to four years; that as this had not been done the junior officers
who were considered were at an advantageuus position because their
performance in Scale V as well as in the lower Scale IV was considered
whereas in the case of senior officers their performance in Scale V alone
was considered because they had rendered more than five to six years
service in that grade; that prescribing of 60 per cent marks for the
H interview as an eligibility craeria was arbitrary, unfair and unjust; and
~
,_
'
~
ALL INDIA STATE BANK OFFICERS FEDERATION v. U.0.1.
259
that the percentage of marks in the viva voce examination should not have A
not more than 15 per cent.
Dismissing the petition, this Court
HELD : 1. Having a reasonable eligibility condition, as four years in
the present case, 8'ay become meaningless if all the eligible officers are not B
considered for promotion. By increasing the number of years from two to
four the field has been somewhat restricted and considering that selection
has to be made only on the basis of merit, it is not unreasonable to give
an opportunity to all the eligible officers to compete with each other and
for the best persons to be selected. Therefore, it cannot be held that the C
change of the policy brought by the Board in its meeting on 7.3.1989 in this
regard is in any way bad in law. [271-G-H]
Asliok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, [1985) 4 SCC 417; VJ.
Thomas & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1985] Supp. SCC 7 and S.B.
Mathur & Ors, v. Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, [1989] Supp. 1 SCC 34, D
held inapplicable.
2. There is nothing wrong if the bank devised a policy defining the
eligibility norms on a realistic basis and devised a system whereby the best
available talent would be chosen to man the critical positions. Keeping this
objective in view t~e changes in the promotion policy have been made. It
is always for the employer to see how to promote and utilise the best talent
available in the organisation. The promotion policy originally framed in
the year 1975 has been amended from time to time. The changes have now
been made in 1989 keeping in mind the requirement of the bank and based
on the experience of the bank in regard to making selection for promotion.
The changes so made cannot be regarded as arbitrary and the Court
cannot sit in appeal and decide as to what is good for the institution. Under
the new policy the petitioners are also eligible for consideration and they
cannot have any grievance because certain persons who were eligible under
E
F
the old policy, but in practice were not considered for promotion, are now G
considered under the new policy. The object of the new policy seems to be
not only to redress the injustice to those officers resulting on account of
the difference between the rules and the practice but also with the object
of selecting the best talent for the top executive posts. [274-H; 275-A-C]
3. The guidelines in question have been issued by the Government H
260
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A
under the Regulations framed under the Banking Regulations Act, 1949
which Act does not apply to the State Bank of India. The said guidelines
dated 23.6.1986 are addressed to the Chief Executi•:es of twenty
nationalised banks and only a copy of the same was marked to the
Chairman of the respondent bank. Furthermore as far as State Bank of
B
c
India is concerned paragraph 17 of the State Bank of India Officers
(Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979 em·
powers the Central Board or the Executive Committee to lay down a policy
regarding promotion to all grades of officers in the Bank. The aforesaid
guidelines which have been issued expressly relate to the nationalised
banks, and not to the State Bank of India, and cannot be regarded as
directions which are issued under Section 18 of the State Bank of India
Act, 1955 as was sought to be suggested by the petitioners. [272-C-F]
4.1. The modification was approved by the Chairman and all the
Directors who were present in the meeting of the Board. For an a!Iegation
of ma/a fide to succeed it must be conclusively shown that respondents 4
D and 5 wielded influence over all the members of the Board who were present
in the said meeting. No such allegation has been made. The decision to
modify the promotion policy was taken by a competent authority, namely,
the Central Board in a duly constituted meeting held on 7.3.1989 and it is
not possible to accept that this change in the policy was brought about
E
solely with a view to help respondents 4 and 5. [274-C-D]
4.2. Moreover, the person against whom mala fides are alleged must
be made a party to the proceeding. The allegation that p.olicy was amended
with a view to benefit respondents 4 and 5 would amount to the petitioners
contending that the Board of Directors of the Bank sought to favour
F
respondents 4 and 5 and, therefore, agreed to the proposal put before it.
Neither the Chairman nor the Directors, who were present in the said
meeting, have been impleaded as respondents. This being so the petitioners
cannot be allowed to raise the allegations of Mala fide. [274-E-F]
5. It is no doubt that in the case of some employees annual confiden·
G tial reports were considered and in the case of other employees assignment
appraisal reports were considered. However, this cannot be a gdod ground
for holding that the selection is vitiated. No particulars have been given in
the writ petition in order to show that the officers in whose case that annual
confidential reports were considered had suffered a disadvantage. Each
H report of an officer, whether an annual confidential report or assignment
ALL INDIA STATE BANK OFFICERS FEDERATION v. U.O.I.
261
appraisal report, bad to be considered on its own and the performance A
assessed. There is nothing to suggest that such assessment on the basis of
the annual confidential report or the assignment appraisal report could
not have been given. It is, therefore not possible to hold that the considera·
tion of two types of reports had resulted in any discrimination.
(275-G; 276-C-D-E] B
6. The procedure of considering the assignments in respect of the
positions held during the past six years was in vogue even when the
eligibility criteria was two years which has how been revised to four years.
Furthermore even in the case of some senior officers the assignments would
cover a portion of their tenure as Scale IV officers. In considering such C
reports what has to be seen is whether the assignment targets which are set
have been satisfactorily met or not. It would not be very material as to in
which scale the officer was while adjudging this aspect. Normally in order
to assess the merit of an officer a period covering three assignments was
considered to be necessary. This being so six years annual assignment
reports had to be considered and such consideration could not be said to D
have caused any prejudice to any officer. This contention, therefore, is
without any substance. (277-F; G; HJ
7.1. There can be no rigid or hard and fast rule that the interview
marks can only be 15 per cent and no more. The percentage of marks for E
viva voce or interview which can be regarded as unreasonable will depend
on the facts of each case. What the interview or viva voce marks should be,
may vary from service to service and the office or position or the purpose
for which the interview is to be held. But the interview marks should not
be so high as to give an authority unchecked scope to manipulate or act
in an arbitrary manner while making selection. Where merit can be best F
judged by holding an interview there such marks may be high but each
case will have to be judged on its own facts. Interview marks may be the
minimal in such cases as relating to admission to a college. (278-B-C-D]
Periakarnpan v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1971] 1SCC38 and Ajay Hasia G
v. Kalid Mujib Sehrawardi, (1981] 1 SCC 722, relied on.
7.2. In the present case, the interview marks represent only 25 per
cent of the aggregate, i.e. 200 marks. In order to be eligible a candidate is
required to obtain 60 per cent of these fifty marks. Considering the fact
that the selection has to be made for appointment to the top executive H
262
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A
cadre and keeping in view the job requirements and the nature of responsibility the bank has raised the minimum qualifying percentage from 50
per cent to 60 per cent. At the same time the total number of interview
marks have been reduced from 100 to 50. Under the circumstances it
cannot be contended that exaggerated weightage has been given to the
B
marks to be obtained in the interview. [279-G-H; 280-A]
Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, [1981] 4 SCC 159; State of U.P. v.
Rafiquddin, [1987] Supp. SCC 401 and Mehmood Alam Tariq & Ors. v.
State of Rajasthan & Ors., (1988] 3 SCC 241, relied on.
C
8.1. In the rejoinder affidavit the then President of the petitionerFederation deposed that in fact only V, an officer of the Bank had allotted
the marks on the individual promotion appraisal forms on the basis of
which a list of candidates was pr~pared by three members of the Screening
Committee. This Court directed the then President to verify on affidavit
D specifying the precise source of information from which the said allegation was derived. This Court also warned that if the allegation was found •
false that also would have its own consequences. The then President filed
an additional affidavit deposing that he had derived the information from
V himself and another officer of the Bank. The Chief General Manager
(Personnel) of the Bank as well as the two officers, referred to in the said
E
additional affidavit, filed their own affidavits, denying the said allegation.
F
Furthermore, the allegation was not substantiated by photo copies of the
appraisal forms of the promotees. In such circumstances, the said allegation in the rejoinder affidavit of the then President of the petitionerFederation is absolutely false. [280-A]
8.2. The then President had alre;ldy "tendered an unqualified appology" to this Court for some mis-statements made in an earlier affidavit.
This Court expressed its disapproval and anguish over that matter but did
not dismiss the petition in view of the offer of the respondent-Bank to
contest the case on merits. Since the then President had once again made
G false statements in his affidavit despite the said observations of this Court
he deserved to be prosecuted for having committed perjury. However, since
he is no longer the President of the Federation and considering that
prosecution may take further time, instead of directing him to be
prosecuted, this writ petition is dismissed with costs which are quantified
H at Rs. 20,000 of which Rs. 10,000 will be paid by him personally. [284-E-F]
',
-
ALLINDIASfATEBANKOFFICERSFEDERATIONv. U.O.L [KIRPAL,J.)
263
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 507 of A
'1989.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
WITH
B
Writ Petition (C) No. 1260 of 1989.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Rajinder Sachher, R. Vasudevan, D.S. Chauhan, K.D. Saini for
Lawyers Inn for the Petitioners.
C
Dr. AF. Julian and A Mariarputham for the Petitioner.
Shanti Bhushan, Shanti Swamp Sharma, Sanjay Kapur, Rajiv Kapur,
AV. Rangam and A Ranganathan for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
KIRPAL, J. The All India State Bank Officers Federation, which is
registered as a trade union of the officers of the State Bank of India
working throughout the country, is seeking to challenge a new promotional
policy framed by the respondent bank on 7th March, 1989 relating to the E
promotion from the post of Senior Management Grade Scale V to Top
Executive Grade Scale VI.
The respondent bank was established by the State Bank of India Act,
1955 (for short 'the Act') and according to Section 17 of the said Act its
Management is entrusted to the Central Board constituted under the Act.
F
Under Section 43 of the said Act the Bank is empowered to appoint such
number of officers, advisers and employees as it considers necessary or
desirable for the efficient performance of its functions. Sub-section (1) of
Section 43 gives the bank the power to determine the terms and conditions
of the appointment of such persons.
G
The bank framed State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service
Rules, 1975, in exercise of its powers under Section 43 of the Act. These
rules deal with various grades and scales of officers, conduct rules, salary,
seniority, promotion etc. Again, under Section 43 of the Act, the Central
Board of the bank framed the State Bank of India Officers (Determination H
264
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A
of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order 1979 (hereinafter referred to
as 'DTCS Order'). This Order deal~ with various grades and scales of
officers, salary perquisites, appointments, probation, confirmation, promotio~, age of retirement rules, terminal benefits etc. The grades and scales
of officers are as follow :
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
"From 1.10.79
(consequent upon revision
of service conditions)
Junior Management Grade I
and all officer Gr. II
Middle Management
Grade Scale II
Middle Management
Grade Scale II.I
Senior Management
Grade Scale IV
Senior Management
Grade Scale IV-A
Senior Management
Grade Scale V
Top Executive Grade Scale
VI General Managers
Top Executive Grade Scale
VII Chief General Managers
From 1.2.84
(consequent upon
wage revision)
Junior Management Gr. I
Middle Management
Grade Scale II
Middle Management
Grade Scale III
Senior Management
Grade Scale IV
Senior Management
Grade Scale V
Top Executive Grade Scale VI
Dy. General Manager
Top Executive Grade Scale VII
- General Managers
Top Executive Grade Special
Scale I-Chief General Managers
Top Executive Grade Special
Top Executive Grade Special
Scale I Dy. Managing Directors Seale II- Dy. Managing
Directors"
Paragraph 17 of the DTCS Order specifically deals with promotion
of staff and is as under :
"Promotions to all grades of officers in the Bank shall be made
c
-
-·
ALLINDIASTA1EBANKOFFICERSFEDERA110Nv. U.0.1. (KIRPAL,J.)
265
in accordance with the policy laid down by the Central Board or A
the Executive Committee from time to time."
In exercise of the powers under this paragraph the Central Board of
the Bank has, from time to time, been determining the policy for promotion
to various grades of scales of officers. The policy for promotion from
Senior Management Grade Scale V to Top Executive Grade Scale VI, with
which we are concerned in the present petition, and Top Executive Grade
Scale VI to Top Executive Grade Scale VII was framed by the Central
Board in its meeting held on 28th November, 1975. Prior to 1975 the
promotion policy which was in force for promotion to Top Executive
Grade Scale VI and to Scale VII did not provide for any selection procedure. From 1975 onwards the Central Board approved a promotion policy
under which assignment appraisals and interviews were made the two
components of the selection procedure. Ac,cording to the petitioners zone
B
c
of consideration from amongst the eligible officers had been varying from
time to time. Generally the Bank had been following a ratio of 1 : 3 or 1 : D
4 between the number of vacancies and the number of candidates. The
Central Board at its meeting held on 8th June, 1982 approved a modification in the promotion policy in terms of which officers with two years
service in Senior Management Grade Scale V were to be eligible for
promotion to Top Executive Grade Scale VI and officers with two years
service in Top Executive Grade Scale VI were to be eligible for promotion
to Top Executive Grade Scale VII. It is an admitted fact that as the zone
of consideration was restricted to three to four times the number of
vacancies, the candidates who were actually considered for promotion to
Top Executive Grade Scale had put in a minimum five to six years of
service in Scale IV, even though the minimum eligibility condition was of
only two years service.
In its meeting held on 7th March, 1989, the Central Board of the
Bank made two modifications in the then existing policy which were as ·
follow:
E
F
G
(i) The eligibility criterion for consideration for promotion to Top
Executive Grade Scale VI was refixed at four years service in the previous
grade/scale, instead of the existing two years service.
(ii) Previously evaluation of the eligible officers was done by allotment of marks on the performance appraisal and interview. An aggregate H
266
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A of 200 marks were being allotted; 100 marks used to be allotted for
performance appraisal and another 100 marks for interview. The qualifying
marks both for performance appraisal and interview were 60 per cent. Now
as a result of the modification made on 7th March, 1989 out of the
aggregate of 200 marks, 150 marks were now allotted for performance
B
appraisal (in lieu of the earlier 100 marks) and 50 marks (in lieu of the
earlier 100 marks) had been allotted for interview. The qualifying marks
for performance appraisal had been changed from 60 per cent to 80 per
cent, while the qualifying marks for interview remained unaltered at 60 per
cent.
C
The manner in which the performance has been appraised has also
undergone a change from time to time. Since long there had been in force
a system of writing annual confidential reports. Since 1974 or 1975 a system
of assignment appraisal was also introduced by the bank. In the year 1986,
according to the petitioners, the bank brought about further change in the
D system of performance appraisal. The old system of writing of annual
confidential reports was substituted by a new and more open and participatary appraisal system. According to the writ petition in this new
system the appraisee got an opportunity of writing self appraisal. However,
this new system was not introduced throughout the bank simultaneously.
The old system of recording of annual confidential reports remained in
E
position till that was gradually replaced by the self appraisal system. We
were informed that now since 1990 the system invoked is ortly that of self
appraisal and the old system of writing annual confidential reports no
longer exists.
F
G
The writ petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid modification in the promotion policy which was approved by the Central Board in
its meeting held on 7th March, 1989. There are various grounds of attack
to the resolution approving the new promotion policy. It is also the case of
the petitioners that the manner in which the process of promotion has been
undertaken was defective.
The main thrust of arguments of Mr. Rajindar Sachar, learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, was that it was unreasonable
not to limit the zone of consideration to three to four times the number of
vacancies. As a result of the new policy, it was submitted, a much larger
H number of relatively junior officers have been considered and promoted.
ALLINDIASfA'IEBANKOFFICERSFEDERATIONv. U.O.I. (KIRPAL,J.]
267
In order to show that injustice had been done to senior eligible officers, as A
a result of the change in the policy, our attention was drawn to the
following statement with regard to the filling up of 58 vacancies in Scale
VII on selection made in 1989 :
No. of officers No. of officers No. of
who qualified who qualified officers
B
with 70% marks with 60% marks promot
in
the
past in the interview
ed
. performance
Total number
of
officers considered
c
under the impugned
policy and belonging to
270
104
58
the 1982, 1983 1984
and left over of earlier
batches.
D
498
Number of officers
belonging to the 1982
and left over of earlier
102
62
16
batches out of the total
E
of
498
officers
considered.
212
The contention on behalf of the petitioners was that eligible candidates p
after the 1982 batch should not have been considered and if the zone of
consideration had been limited to three to four times then the filed of
choice would have been restricted and only those officers who were in
Scale V in the year 1982 or earlier would have been considered and
promoted. In support of his contention that doing away with the zone of
consideration was not reasonable, reliance was placed on the decision of G
this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, [1985) 4
sec 417.
Ashok Kumar Yadav's case was concerned with the recruitments
made by the Haryana Public Service Commission to 61 posts in Haryana H
268
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A
Civil Service (Executive) and other allied services. The relevant rules
provided that a competitive examination was to be held consisting of
written examination in different papers having an aggregate of 700 marks
ahd a vive voce examination carrying 200 marks. The rules, inter alia,
further provided that no candidate was eligible to appear in the vive voce
B test unless he obtained 45 per cent marks in aggregate in all the subjects.
In response to the said advertisement 6000 candidates applied and appeared for the written examination and out of these over 1300 secured 45
per cent marks and had thus qualified for being called for the interview or
the vive voce examination. Though originally the recruitment was only for
C 61 posts but during the time when the selection process was under way a
total number of 119 posts became available. The Haryana Public Service
Commission invited all the 1300 and odd candidates who had qualified for
the viva voce test and the interview lasted for almost half a year. On the
basis of the total marks obtained in the written examination as well as viva
voce test 119 candidates were selected and recommended by the CommisD sion to the State Government. Some of the candidates who were not
selected filed a writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court
challenging the said selection. Five of the selected candidates, including
Ashok Kumar, were impleaded as respondents.
E
The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition and
F
held that the Haryana Public Service Commission should not have called
for interview all the candidates who had obtained more than 45 per cent
marks in the written examination and the number of candidates to be called
for interview should not have exceeded twice or thrice the number of
vacancies required to be filled. This was one of the grounds on which the
selection of Ashok Kumar and other candidates was quashed. Thereupon
appeals were filed by Ashok Kumar Yadav and the State of Haryana. Their
appeal was allowed by this Court and the selection made by the Haryana
Public Service Commission was upheld. While dealing with the submissions
relating to the Haryana Public Service Commission calling the 1300 and
G odd candidates for viva voce test, who had secured 45 per cent or more
marks in the written examination for only 61 seats, it was observed by this
Court that merely because minimum qualification for eligibility to appear
at the viva voce test for a candidate was to obtain at least 45 per cent marks
in the aggregate in the written examination the Haryana Public Service
H Comn1ission was under no obligation to call for viva voce test all the
ALLlNDIASTAIBBANKOFFICERSFEDERATIONv. U.0.1. [KIRPAL,J.)
269
. candidates who satisfied the minimum eligibility requirements. It was open A
to the Commission to call for viva voce test a limited number of candidates
who figured at the top of the list. After referring to Kothari Committee's
Report on "Recruitment Policy and Selection Methods for the Civil Service
Examination" at page 447 it was observed as follows :
"We are therefore of the view that where there is a composite test
consisting of a written examination followed by a viva voce test,
the number of candidates to be called for interview in order of the
marks obtained in the written examination, should not exceed twice
B
or at the highest, thrice the number of vacancies to be filled. The
Haryana Public Service Commission in the present case called for C
interview all candidates numbering over 1300 who satisfied the
minimum eligibility requirement by securing a minimum of 45%
marks in the written examination and this was certainly not right,
but we may point out that in doing so, the Haryana Public Service
Commission could not be said to be actuated by any mala fide or D
oblique motive, because it was common ground between the parties that this was the practice which was being consistently followed
by the Haryana Public Service Commission over the years and what
was done in this case was nothing exceptional."
Relying upon the aforesaid passage it was strongly contended by Mr.
Sachar that the policy of 7th March, 1989 which did away with the concept
of zone of consideration was clearly contrary lo the aforesaid observations
of this Court in As/wk Kumar Yadav's case.
In our opinion Aslzok Kumar Yadav's case can be of no assistance to
the petitioners. It is no doubt true that this Court did make the aforesaid
observation that the number of candidates to be called for interview should
E
F
not exceed twice or at the highest thrice the number of vacancies to be
filled. Nevertheless after making this observation the Court posed a question as to "whether this had any invalidating effect on the selections made G
by the Haryana Public Service Commission". The answer to this was
provided in the subsequent paragraph in the following words "We do not
think that the selection made by the Haryana Public Service Commission
could be said to be vitiated merely on the ground that as many as 1300 and
more candidates representing more than twenty times the number of H
270
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996} SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A available vacancies were called for mterview, though on the view taken by
us that was not the right course to follow and not more than twice or at
the highest thrice the number of candidates shoulcl have been called for
the interview. Something more than merely calling an unduly large number
of candidates for interview must be shown in order to invalidate the
B selections made."
It is clear from the aforesaid that this Court 'Vas of the opinion that
while it was desirable that the number of candidates who were called for
viva voce examination should not be unduly large but it did not agree with
the conclusion of the High Court that calling large number of candidates
C invalidated the selection. In other words not having a restricted zone of
consideration was not regarded as illegal or bad in law. An unduly large
number of candidates to be intervie~ed may make it impossible to carry
out a satisfactory viva voce test and the interview may tend to be casual,
superficial or sloppy. The above quoted observations are only words of
D caution lest the viva voce test be reduced to farce. Notwithstanding the fact
that the Court did not approve of a large number of candidates being called
for interview, nevertheless the selections so made by the Haryana Public
Service Commission were not invalidated by this Court and the judgment
of the High Court was set aside and tl!e selection made was upheld.
E
F
G
Whereas in As/wk Kumar Yadav's case for 61 vacancies, which were
originally notified, 1300 and 9dd candidates were called for viva voce
examination and this Court held that this was not invalid, in the present
case for 58 vacancies only 498 eligible officers were considered for promotion. Applying the ratio of decision of As/wk Kumar Yadav's case to the
facts of the present case it cannot be said that the policy of considering all
the eligible officers for promotion, without having a restricted zone of
consideration is in any way bad in law. In fact in this manner no eligible
officer can have a grievance, which may be legitimate, that he was not
considered even though he was eligible.
Our attention was also drawn to the case of V.J. Thomas and Ors. v.
Union of India and Ors., [1985] Supp. SCC 7. The decision in this case has
no application here because there the Court was concerned with a case
where it was held that if the vacancies were few, and the candidates were "'
H disproportionately large in number, department could make a classification
AU...INDIASfA1EBANKOFFICERSFEDERATIONv. U.0.1. (K.IRPAL,J.]
271
amongst eligible candidates on the basis of their lenght of experience so as A
to restrict the examination only for those having longer service leaving
others to appear in the next examination. Similarly the decision in S.B.
Mathur and Ors. v. Chief Justice of Delhi High Court and Ors., [1989] Supp.
1 SCC 34 holding that the zone of consideration or field of choice can be
limited to a multiple of number of vacancies, on the basis of seniority, has B
no application to the point in issue here. In fact the Court referred to the
decision in Ashok Kumar Yadav's case (supra) and, in principle to the
observation on which reliance has been placed by Mr. Sachar, and in was
observed at page 51 para 19 as under :
"The Bench however, went on to hold that, in its view, merely C
because the Haryana Public Service Commission had called all the
1300 candidates who obtained 45 per cent or more marks in the
written examination to appear in the interview that did not invalidate the selection made. This decision points out that the
minimmn eligibility qualification has to be kept distinct from the D
-zone of consideration and even if there are a large number of
candidates who satisfy the minimum eligibility requirement it is not
always required that they should be included in the zone of
consideration, it being open to the authority concerned to restrict
the zone of considera!ion amongst the eligible candidates in any E
reasonable manner."
Our attention has not been drawn to any decision or observation of
this Court which has taken a contrary view. Having a reasonable eligibility
condition, as four years in the present case, may become meaningless if all
the eligible officers are not considered for promotion. By increasing the F
numbers of years from two to four the field has been somewhat restricted
and considering that selection has to be made only on the basis of merit,
it is not unreasonable to give an opportunity to all the eligible officers to
compete with each other and for the best persons to be selected. Moreover,
this case relates to in-service promotion while Ashok Kumar Yadav was a G
case of direct recruitment. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the
petitioners that the charge of the policy brought by the Board in its meeting
on 7th March, 1989 in this regard is in any way bad in law.
It was then contended that on 23rd June, 1986 the Government of
India, Ministry of Finance, had issued guidelines under Regulation 17 of H
272
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A
the Officers Service Regulation.