B R SHARMA Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner who was employed as an Assistant Manager in Junior Management Grade Scale?I(JMGS-I) in the respondent Bank and had been denied promotion to the Middle Management Grade Scale-II(MMGS-II). He had challenged the denial of promotion to him by filing the present writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner was recruited by the respondent bank as a clerk in 1974 and he claims that as a result of his excellent performance he was promoted to the JMGS-I in 1978. Further promotion from JMGS-I was to MMGS-II. THE respondent bank had framed a promotion policy dated 16/04/90 and para no. 11.10 of that promotion policy provided that the maximum number of officers to be considered for promotion for MMGS-II were to be restricted to four times the number of vacancies but in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing the zone of consideration could be enlarged by the Board of Directors of the bank.

(3.) THE respondent bank in its counter affidavit while opposing the writ petition claimed that the zone of consideration for filling up of 120 vacancies in MMGS-II was rightly enlarged keeping in view the guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Banking Division in terms of regulation 17 of the Syndicate Bank (Officers) Service Regulations according to which the Board of Directors of the bank was empowered to extend the range for consideration beyond four times the vacancies in order to include superceded officers. It was further claimed that the rationale behind including superceded officers in the range of consideration as an exceptional circumstance was that otherwise the superceded officers will have to be interviewed for every promotion process besides restricting the choice and further that there will be chances of an officer not getting selected in the past getting excluded in the process. It was further claimed that as per the nature of promotion policy followed by the respondent bank even a junior most officer in the range gets a chance of getting selected by virtue of his performance and qualifications as against the promotion by seniority-cum-merit where the junior officers have a chance for promotion only when a senior officer is found unfit for promotion. Regarding the allegation of the petitioner that his performance ratings for the years 1986-88 had been erroneously toned down to ,,Average or ,,Above Average by the reviewing authority the respondent bank claimed that the Head Office was the final authority in respect of the ratings to be awarded and for that purpose a Committee is constituted by the Chairman and Managing Director of the bank which finally reviews the performance of the officers.