K UNNIKRISHNAN Vs. STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition filed by the Officers of State Bank of Hyderabad assails the action of the 1st respondent in treating respondents 2 to 105 as seniors over the petitioners and seeking refixation of seniority by quashing the Circular dated 17-9-1983.

(2.) Advertisement was made in September, 1975 for appointment to the post of Probationary Officers in the services of the State Bank of India and its subsidiary Banks and the 1st respondent is one of such subsidiary Banks. Educational qualifications were prescribed and the mode of selection was by written test followed by interview. Petitioners and respondents 2 to 16 were among such personnel, who appeared for the said examination and were successful in the results announced on 1-9-1976. It is needless to mention that such selection, which was announced on 1-9-1976 was on the basis of merit of the candidates and accordingly the rankings were assigned. The selection was made by Central Recruitment Board and rankings according to the marks obtained in order of merit will be maintained and basing on the same, the allotment will be made to various subsidiary Banks. Petitioners and respondents 2 to 16 were allotted to the 1st respondent. While respondents 2 to 16 were all intimated their postings in the office of the 1st respondent much before the end of 1976 and they have also taken charge before the end of 1976, the petitioners were served with such posting orders much later and were asked to join in the months of January and February, 1977. Basing on the respective dates of taking of charge, a rankings were given in the said Officers cadre Gr. II and in view of the above situation, respondents 2 to 16 were given rankings over the petitioners. The next promotion post was Grade-I, to which the eligible criteria was 4 years qualifying service in Grade II post. That was in view of the circular dated 7-7-1975. For personnel having 4 years qualifying service, written test and oral test were prescribed and only oral interview for such of Grade-II Officers having qualifying service of 7 years. This qualifying service was reduced by another Circular dated 20-3-1979. Under this Circular, the qualifying service was reduced from 4 years to 2 years if the promotion was to be based on written test and interview and it was 5 years if it was only oral interview. The cut-off date mentioned was 1-1-1979. As such, such of those Officers of Grade-II, who were in service as such on 31-12-1976 alone were eligible. By reason of the same, while respondents 2 to 16 were made eligible to hold the said posts, petitioners were not qualified. As the respondents 2 to 16 were promoted, they went up in ladder to Grade-I post Then came State Bank of Hyderabad (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 with effect from 1-10-1979. Acting on Regulation 7 thereof, the petitioners and respondents 2 to 16 were categorised as Junior Management Grade Scale-I Officers in the pay scale of Rs.700-1800. Officers promoted from Grade-II to Grade-I before 31-12-1972 were fitted in Middle Management Grade Scale-II. Even though the anomaly to some extent was removed, the petitioners were still treated as juniors in Junior Management Grade Scale I (hereinafter referred to as 'JMG-I')- The next promotional post is Middle Management Grade Scale-II (hereinafter referred to as 'MMG-II'). The 1st respondent issued a Circular No. 24/79 dated 20-3-1979 for effecting promotions from JMG-I to MMG-II. The criteria being merit-cum- suitability through an interview conducted for evaluating the same. But, again, a cut-off date was specified and the same was 31-12-1978. Only such of those JMC-I officers who were promoted to erstwhile Officers Grade-I before 31-12-1978 were made eligible. Similar was the Circular No. 82/83, dated 17-9-1983 issued by the 1st respondent holding that such of those officers in JMC-I who have been promoted to the erstwhile Grade-I post upto and including 1-1-1979 as eligible for consideration and promotion to the post of MMG-II. Here again, the petitioners were found ineligible while respondents 2 to 16 were found eligible as the latter were promoted to the erstwhile Grade-I post effective from 1-1-1979 even though such promotion orders were in fact issued on 10-1-1980. The petitioners grievance against respondents 17 to 105 is that they were shown as seniors even though they were promoted from clerical cadre to the erstwhile Grade-II and while one year probation was prescribed for them 3 years period was prescribed for the petitioners and respondents2 to 16;however, the period of probation wasreducedfrom3years to 2 years later. Because of the prescription of one year probation, respondents 17 to 105 were confirmed earlier than the petitioners and were then promoted to the erstwhile Grade-I post. Before the date set for selection to the post of MMG- II, this Writ Petition was filed and stay orders were sought for. But, no ex partesiay wasgranted, instead, notice wasissued. As such, the selection process went on. In the span of 11 years, not only the promotions were effected to MMG-II, but also to the posts in MMG-III. 2(A). The 1st respondent filed a counter stating that appointment orders were issued on receipt of medical reports of successful candidates, that the 1st respondent can not be made responsible for the variance in the dates of taking charge by the Officers so appointed to Grade-II posts and the seniority in Grade- II in the office of the 1st respondent is maintained in accordance with the Rules governing the service conditions and that the petitioners are bound by the same. It also defended the promotion policy as being consistent and free from arbitrariness. They denied that the Circular enunciating promotion policy was issued on 20-3-1979 was tailor-made to suit the respondents 2 to 16. It was pleaded that the said Circular of 1979 was issued after hold ing discussions with the Bank Officers Association and there is nothing wrong in doing so. It is also stated that the said promotion policy was approved by the Executive Committee of the 1st respondent-Bank on 6-3-1979. Similar is the defence with regard to the Circulars issued in the years 1981 and 1983. Lastly, the 1st respondent has pleaded laches on the part of the petitioners stating that all through the petitioners were knowing all things about their seniority vis-a-vis respondents 2 to 105 and the promotion policy enunciated from time to time and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed not only for the reasons stated above, but also for the reason of laches in approaching this Court in the year 1984.

(3.) Mr. K. Subrahmanya Reddy, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners/ submits that the date of joining cannot be the criteria for fixing the seniority and the seniority ought to have been fixed basing on the rankings in the list prepared by the Central Recruitment Board and fortuitous circumstance of taking charge first, cannot be reckoned to the benefit of respondents 2 to 16; thus depriving the petitioners, who are found to be more meritorious than the above respondents. He further contends that the eligibility criteria for promotion from JMG-I to MMG-II is merit-cum-suliability and as such the question of making further classification fixinga cut off date as 1-1-1979 tracing to promotions hi thertoGrade-Iposthavcgotno relevance and that in any event as there was no one of consideration fixed, all Officers in JMG-I cadre were entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of MMG-II and fixing of cut-off date, thus depriving the petitioners was arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution.