STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. A.P. MATTHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 1 herein is the original petitioner. He was appointed Probationary Assistant in the appellant bank in the year 1956 on being selected after a competitive examination and interviews conducted on All India basis. During all this period he got all due promotions so much so that on 19th February 1981 he was selected for the post of General Manager and was confirmed in that post on 1st March 1982. In a further selection held on 8th June, 1983 for the post of Chief General Manager, however, 9 officers including a few officers junior to the petitioner were selected. The petitioner's claim was considered but he was not selected on the ground that his confidential report for the calendar year 1982 was adverse.

(2.) A petition was filed in this court against his non -selection for the post of Chief General Manager in the selection held on 8 -6 -1983. The petition has been allowed by the learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated 17 -9 -1985.

(3.) THE appellant bank is in appeal. It is reiterated by Shri Kapadia, the learned counsel for the appellant that the representation made by the petitioner against the adverse remarks was rejected by the Deputy Managing Director vide his letter dated 3 -1 -1984. Inviting then our attention to the Supreme Court decision in the case of R. L. Butail vs. Union of India and others, : (1971) 2 SCR 55, and the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Y. V. Thatte vs. State of Maharashtra and another, : 1984 Mh.L.J. 1019, Shri Kapadia contended that even if it is assumed that the representation made by the petitioner against the adverse remarks was not rejected in terms, the appeal will have to be allowed with a direction to the appellants to consider the representation afresh and only in the event of the petitioner's representation succeeding, the selection made on 8 -6 -1983 would have to be reviewed. Shri Sawant, on the other hand, urged that it was not a simple case of non -consideration of a representation against adverse remarks. The adverse remarks given by the Reporting Officer were not even reviewed in this case by the reviewing authority. Remarks which are adverse cannot be taken into account in the matter of selection for a higher post at all unless the Reviewing Officer had approved them. It is submitted that the petitioner's case would, therefore, fall within the ratio of this court's judgment in the case of Omprakash Brahamanand Pahajo vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No. 3746 of 1982 decided on 12th September 1984. This court had quashed the promotions made in that case and the respondents were directed to consider the case of all eligible persons including the petitioners afresh without taking into consideration the adverse remarks. Shri Sawant also supported his submissions by referring to this court's judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Madhav Khanderao Ambikar, F.L.R. Volume 53(1986) 346 to which one of us Bharucha, J. is a party.