ASSEEM PAUL Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition challenges the non-promotion of the petitioner for several years. The petitioner joined the respondent bank on 2/1/1974 as a Probationary Officer and is now working as Chief officer (Inspection-Mobile) since October, 2001 which is a Grade Scale IV post. He is aspiring to be promoted to Grade Scale V since 2001. He challenges denial of his promotion in the years 2001, 2002 and 2003. The respondent bank has formed UCO Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 under Section 19 read with Section 12(2) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. Chapter IV of these Regulations deal with appointment, probation, confirmation, promotion, seniority and termination. Regulation 14 in this Chapter prescribes that all appointments in and promotions to the officer grade shall be made by the competent uthority in the light of the guidelines of the Government, if any. Promotions are further dealt with in Regulation 17 which says that promotions to all grades of officers in the bank shall be made in accordance with the policy laid down by the Board from time-to-time having regard to the guidelines of the Government, if any. Guidelines issued by the Government are Annexure 5. Annexure 5, inter alia, gives the Committee responsibility for deciding the promotion of an officer. Item No. 4 deals with promotion from the Senior Management Grade Scale IV to Senior Management Grade Scale V. The Committee for this is comprised of Chairman and Managing Director, the Executvie Director and one General Manager.

(2.) The promotion policy for officers has been published by the respondent bank. This also has been framed in terms of Regulation 17 of the UCO Bank (Officers) Service Regulation, 1979. The relevant provision are as under: Paragraph 1.13 provides that the potential of the officers for shouldering higher responsibilities in the bank is sought to be assessed through a process of interview. For promotions to Senior Management Grade Scales IV and V group discussions will be held apart from the interview. By an amendment in July, 2002 the requirement of group discussion has been done away with. The eligibility conditions prescribed for promotion from Senior Management Grade Scale IV to Senior Management Grade Scale V is three years of satisfactory service in Senior Management Grade Scale IV. Paragraph 6.1 prescribes that the number of officers to be called for participation in the promotion process will normally be three to four times the vacancies identified inclusive of superseded officers of the earlier promotion process. Before withdrawal of group discussion distribution of marks for assessing suitability of an officer for promotion is given as- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_460_DLT132_2006Html1.htm</FRM> For assessing the performance the following practice has been observed by the bank. The annual performance appraisal report or the PAR is recorded on a prescribed form. The first part of the form is filled by the Appraisee officer which he is required to do objectively and as far as possible with facts and figures. The eporting officer is thereafter required to give his assessment of the appraisee. The reviewing authority then makes his own assessment and records the same in the same form. Another circular of the bank dated 18.10.1997, inter alia, prescribes that officers working in branches should submit their PAR to the Branch Manager, officers working in the Regional Offices and Zonal Offices to the concerned Regional Manager/Zonal Manager and officers working in the Head Office/ Administrative Office to Department Head, Branch Manager to Regional/ Zonal Manager, Regional Manager to Zonal Manager, Zonal Manager to General Manager (Operation) and General Manager and Deputy General Manager working in the head office to Executive Director.

(3.) The petitioner became eligible for consideration in the year 2001 after he had put in three years of service in Scale IV. Since the three years performance has to be examined his PAR for 1999, 2000 and 2001 was required to be considered. The petitioner's grievance for his non-promotion in the year 2001 relates to the assessment done by Mr. P.K. Dutta who was his reporting officer. The objection is that Mr. P.K. Dutta was also an officer of Scale IV and himself a candidate for promotion to Scale V and as such a competitor and, therefore, was incompetent to report on the performance of the petitioner. Further it is alleged that Mr. P.K. Dutta was not the Reporting Officer for the petitioner at that time.