SUKLA BAGCHI Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition seeking judicial review of the decision making process which underlay the decision not to promote the petitioner in MMGS-II with effect from June 1, 2017. Certain facts are not in dispute. The writ petitioner was admittedly in service of the respondent no.1 and was serving in scale MMGS-III. She was entitled to be considered for promotion to scale SMGS-IV for the respondent no.1 on the principle of merit. What Mr. Soumen Das rightly points out the promotion policy which is unchallenged clearly indicates that for such a promotion (only merit channel), the following are the essential criteria:-

(2.) It is also not in dispute that the promotion policy of the respondent no.1 comprises a system of self-appraisal in terms of Annexure-P-1 being the guidelines concerned. These guidelines are in reality the standards and norms which govern the respondent no.1 even though they are called guidelines. These guidelines make it clear that the system of self-appraisal includes a self-appraisal by the concerned employee who is seeking promotion a reporting to whom it is reported and the reviewing authority. Till this stage, the method of appraisal through the employee his reporting authority and the reviewing authority is unexceptionable and the judgment in the case of A.P. State Financial Corporation vs. C.M. Ashok Raju and Others reported in (1994)5 Supreme Court Cases 359 supports this. It is fairer than the system of confidential reports where one officer superior to the employee appraises the performance of his subordinates.

(3.) However, it is only thereafter that the respondent no.1 has parted company with due process. It has brought a concept of an accepting authority in terms of Clause 7 of the guidelines which reads as follows: