NEELAPALA SURYANARAYANA Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have claimed that the first respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank') has empanelled Junior Management Grade/Scale-I Officers for the purpose of next promotion to Middle Management, Grade/ Scale II (General Banking Officers) as per Staff Circular No.3290 dated 27/05/1988, illegally arbitrarily, and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is therefore claimed that the said empanelled list, be set aside and it be declared that petitioners are entitled to be empanelled for the purpose of promotion to the Middle Management Grade/Scale-II (Central Banking Officers) and they be included in the list circulated along with Staff Circular No.3290 dated 27/05/1998 with all consequential., benefits. This is the writ sought.

(2.) The main grounds, on which such writ is sought, may be stated. The promotions in the Bank are governed by Promotion Policy for the Officers under Regulation No.17 of the Bank, for Officers Service Regulations, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations')- This Circular was issued on 8-2-1993 under Circular No.2530. Amendments were made from time to time. As per the Staff Circular No.2825 dated 13-6-1985, clause (g) of para 2.2 the number of Officers to be considered for participation in the promotion process from one Grade to the Higher Grade was restricted to ratio of 1: 3 or 4 at the most. This ratio was based on the number of vacancies identified/ contemplated for being filled up at the time of empanelment. Now it is alleged that 492 vacancies were identified for being filled up in Middle Management/Scale-II in the relevant year. In view of the ratio at the most 1968 candidates could be called for consideration. However, around 2000 Officers were in' fact called for interviews. This enabled the management of the Bank to accommodate some of the Junior Officers, who did not fall within the ratio but in whom the management was interested. This prejudiced the interest of the Senior Officers. Further, the empanelled list of previous promotion process from Scale I to Scale II conducted in 1983 December was ultimately exhausted only at the end of 1987 November. It is alleged that filling up of vacancies which were existing till 1987 were operated from the panel which continued for almost four years and this was arbitrary and highly prejudicial to the staff of the Bank. The next process of promotion as started in December, 1987 and within a short time of less than six months the impugned Circular dated 27/05/1988 that the empanelment was prepared. It is alleged that this shows mala fides of the Bank Management to accommodate the Junior Officers of their choice. Interviews for the last batch were conducted apparently on 23/05/1988 and within four days successful candidates were enlisted by the impugned Circular. It is alleged that in the history of Bank such speedy process has never taken place at any time before. It is alleged that as per Circular No,2877 dated 29/10/1985 for promotion from Scale-1 to Scale-11 every Officer for being considered has to serve for a minimum period of two years in rural area. This was the qualifying condition for consideration for promotion. This provision was to come into effect from 1/06/1988. To overcome the above difficulty and to give advantage-to the persons, who were working in Metropolitan Bombay Zone and who were without any rural experience, the management devised the unwarranted exercise of preparing the panel. It is alleged that in feet promotions which were to be given against vacancies arising after 1/06/1988 could be given only to such candidates, who fulfilled the qualifications of rural service for two years. In the impugned empanelled list there are several Officers, who have not done any rural service as required. In spite of many representations, the management ignored the objections raised by various groups and Officers individually. In the note given by the management in the impugned empanelled list it has been stated :

(3.) It is also urged that in the promotion policy as per para 2.5 weightage of job responsibility was a factor to be considered. Three marks were to be given for every completed year of service as Branch Manager/ Accountant etc. The maximum marks for this category were ten. Some of the petitioners were never given work as Accountant by the Bank management without their fault and were deprived of these marks. Some of the petitioners were given such opportunity only for a short time. Thus they were deprived of some of the marks. This was arbitrary action on the part of the management to favour some of the candidates. It is also alleged that the exact number of vacancies were never notified nor informed to concerned Officers, who were in the Zone of consideration. The cut-off date chosen was 21-12-1988 for calling the Officers for interview. The interviews were not taken by one and the same Committee but two separate Committees conducted the interviews. Thus there was variation in respect of evaluation of merits of the candidates. Each committee evaluated the merit in its own way. It is repeated that the promotion process has been expedited for some ulterior reason and to help certain candidates in whom the management had interest. The petitioners contend that they have a good record of service without any adverse remarks and hence the action of management is bad in overlooking their claim.