LEELAVATHI Vs. CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is not suggested that any notification under S.14(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (Central Act 13/85) has so far been issued, and the admissibility of this writ petition has therefore to be considered on merits.

(2.) The petitioner is a clerk in the State Bank of India and claims to be sufficiently senior to be considered for appointment as an officer in the Junior Management Scale Grade I (hereinafter called 'JMO') in the Kerala Regional Offices of the Bank. Under rules governing the matter, such appointments are to be made by promotion from among the seniormost clerical staff by selection on the basis of tests periodically conducted. During the last test, only clerks who had commenced service prior to June, 1974 were promoted, and the next test was due to be held in April, 1985. The petitioner was expecting to participate in that test and to compete for promotion; but in the meanwhile, the Bank of Cochin Ltd. was amalgamated with the State Bank of India in accordance with a scheme prepared by the Reserve Bank and sanctioned by the Central Government under the provisions of S.45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The scheme provided for absorption of employees of the Bank of Cochin into the services of the State Bank of India, except those named in a Schedule appended to it. Those not included in the Schedule were to continue in service and were to be "deemed to have been appointed by the transferee Bank" at the same remuneration and on the same terms and conditions as were applicable to them earlier. The transferee bank was also obliged, under paragraph (12) of the scheme, to make available to such absorbed employees, within three years, the same remuneration and the same terms and conditions of service as are applicable to employees of corresponding rank or status of the transferee bank, subject to equality of qualifications and experience.

(3.) Now, the complaint in the writ petition is this. In pursuance of the aforesaid scheme, the State Bank of India has absorbed into its services certain "officers" (as distinct from other employees governed by the Industrial Disputes Act) of the former Bank of Cochin, and has started posting them as JMOs. in some of its branches, with the result that the petitioner and others are deprived of their legitimate chances of promotion. It is alleged that the Cochin Bank employees had become officers not on considerations of seniority or merit, but on other considerations, and that it was not unusual for a Cochin Bank clerk to become an officer after two to three years of service, while in the State Bank, such elevations would never have taken place even within a decade. Persons like the petitioner had an exclusive right to be considered for promotions to such of the vacancies in the JMO cadre as had arisen before August, 1985 (i.e. before the date of amalgamation) and it is claimed that such rights could not be defeated by the arbitrary method of bringing in subsequent transferees. Fundamental rights under Art.14 and 16 are threatened. It is contended that till equality of rank and status is established within the meaning of and the time prescribed in paragraph (12) of the scheme, there could be no question of an absorbed officer of the Bank of Cochin being equated with an officer of the State Bank in the JMO cadre. The absorption could not be treated as complete until the expiry of the 3-year period; till then the absorbed employees have to be treated as a separate group and kept as such. There are enough vacancies in the cadre of JMO to absorb persons like the petitioner also, and if all the vacancies are allotted to the new-comers, that would result in denial of equality of opportunity.