BAKUL CHANDRA MAJUMDAR Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question to be answered in this writ petition is whether the refusal of promotion to the petitioner, an officer in MMG Scale II of the State Bank of India to the next higher grade, MMG Scale III was in accordance with the provisions of the Rules and Regulation of the bank and, if not, the relief to which the petitioner is entitled to.

(2.) The petitioner after completion of Post Graduate Studies in Science appeared in the Probationary Officers Examination. He was selected and appointed as such in the month of December, 1983. His initial posting was at Agartala Branch of the State Bank of India in the State of Tripura. On successful completion of the probation period of two years, he was confirmed in the Junior Management Scale I. In November, 1989 the petitioner was promoted to the Middle Management Grade II. On completion of three years of service in the Middle Management Grade II, the petitioner became eligible for consideration for promotion to the MMG Scale III as per Circular dated March 25, 1991, the list of officers selected for promotion was published on 15 12.1992 and the petitioner, to his utter surprise found that he was not selected. He submitted an appeal and review application to the appropriate authority. These went in vain. In the meantime, in August 1994, another list of officers selected for promotion to MMG Scale III was published. This time also the petitioner was not selected for promotion. The petitioner again preferred an appeal to the appropriate authority on 6.9.1994. Because of inordinance delay in the disposal of the appeal, the petitioner approached this Court for quashing of the ACR/Performance Report allegedly written by the officer without jurisdiction and for appropriate direction for consideration of his case for promotion with effect from November 1, 1992.

(3.) The Bank authorities in their affidavit-in-opposition took the stand that eligibility for promotion depends on performance report. The petitioner failed to secure the minimum cut off mark and, therefore, was not in the zone of selection for promotion. It is contended that the "performance of the petitioner for last 6 years, ACR/PAS for the last 5 years were screened by the Screening Committee to form a zone of selection for promotion to MMG-Scale III with effect from 1.11.93". They also denied that ACR/PAS was written by unauthorised officer in deviation of the usual practice followed by the Bank.