CANARA BANK OFFICERS UNION Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CANARA Bank Officers' Union represented by its General Secretary has filed the above writ petition questioning the promotion policy to Middle Management Grade Scale II and Scale III for the year 1990- 91 as per Memo No. 13/91, dated January 16, 1991, on various grounds.

(2.) THE case of the union is as follows: According to them, the petitioner is a trade union, registered under the Trade Unions Act and it represents about 3,500 officer employees out of about 10,000 officer employees employed in the respondents bank. The respondent is a nationalised bank and is "state" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The respondent-bank in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and with the previous sanction of the Central Government have made Canara Bank (Officers) Service Regulations. Clause 17 of the Regulations provides that promotion to all the 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. The respondent announced promotion policy to Middle Management Grade Scale II and Scale III for the year 1990-91 as per memo, dated January 16, 1991. Under the said policy, there are two channels of promotion from Junior management Grade Scale I to Middle Management Scale II. The first channel of promotion is called "test Channel" and the second channel of promotion is called "interview Channel. " The officers can opt for only one channel. All Officers who have been appointed as Probationary Officers on or before 1981 are eligible for consideration of promotion from Junior Management Scale I to Middle Management Scale II. Similarly, for promotion from Middle Management Scale II to Middle Management Scale III only officers who have been recruited/promoted to Seale II on or before December 31, 1984 are eligible for consideration. This eligibility clause is in complete contravention of the policy under Regulation 17 which provides that officers who have completed seven years in Scale I and five years in Scale II are eligible for promotion. For promotion Scale II on account of the compartmentalisation of the channels of promotion, an officer has to confine his choice to one of the two channels. Thus, there is discrimination in the matter of promotion to Scale III and to Scale II. This discrimination has no nexus with the object of making promotions. Further, there is no justification for compelling the officers eligible for promotion to Scale II to restrict their choice either to test channel or to interview channel. On the contrary both the channels should be made available to all eligible officers. Further, rural service was implemented as a precondition for promotion under the earlier policies. The officers who have not accepted rural service postings have been debarred for promotion and once for all denied their promotional opportunities. The allotment of 25 per cent of the total marks for the interview is unreasonable and arbitrary. The impugned promotion also does not make any reservation for SC/st categories. In such circumstances, having no other effective remedy, the petitioner union has filed the above writ petition.

(3.) THE respondent have filed a counter affidavit. It runs as follows; The respondent by virtue of being under the control of Ministry of Finance, Government of India, follow the guidelines and directions issued by the Government. In the absence of averment of India as a party to the present proceedings, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The promotion policy for the year 1990-91 was announced by the bank on October 16, 1991. By virtue of Regulation 17 (1) and in accordance with the guidelines of the Ministry of Finance, the respondent-bank made necessary rules. The promotion policy for the year 1990-91 provided for promotion under 2 channels for officers from Scale I to Scale II. They are test channel and interview channel. In 1990-91 out of 132 vacancies in interview channel, 20 vacancies were ear-marked for officers who have submitted appraisal for last 3 years and who have not been promoted, In the case of SC/st officers, a concession of 5 marks was given, qualifying marks for them is only 35 per cent. Those officers who have completed rural service as required under the regulations alone will be eligible for promotion. The respondent has adopted fair policy of promotion in the promotion of officer employees. Regulation 17 is subject to the modifications made by the Board in accordance with the guidelines given by the Government of India. It is open to the bank to take into consideration of aspects and restrict the number of officers contesting for promotion on the ground of availability of vacancies. Therefore, the policy laid down regarding eligibility and zone of consideration is followed, hence the same cannot be challenged. Pursuant to the guidelines issued by the Government, the Board of the respondent-bank has framed the promotion policy. Hence, the formulation of two channels of selection is reasonable, fair and justified. The promotion policy is formulated in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government of India and in a manner best suited to its requirements. The promotion is by selection when once it is accepted that promotion can be by selection, then the method of selection so long as it is not arbitrary or capricious is not subject to any other scrutiny. The officers according to the Government guidelines, have to complete 2 years of rural service to become eligible for promotion through JMG 1 to MMG 2 and it has been in operation with effect from June 1, 1988 for promotion from MMG 2 to MMG 3. The experience of rural service is considered important by the bank and hence it is submitted by the respondent that such condition is not bar for promotional opportunities. The petitioner-union is also a party and they have signed the agreement with the Indian Banks Association at the time of wage revision agreeing for promotion in public sector banks without any weightage for senior and promotions to be only based on merit. With these averments, the respondent-bank prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.