B.R. Sharma vs Syndicate Bank

P.K. Bhasin, J.—The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioner who was employed as an Assistant Manager in Junior Management Grade Scale-I(JMGS-I) in the Respondent Bank and had been denied promotion to the Middle Management Grade Scale-II(MMGS-II). He had challenged the denial of promotion to him by filing the present writ petition.

The Petitioner was recruited by the Respondent bank as a clerk in 1974 and he claims that as a result of his excellent performance he was promoted to the JMGS-I in 1978. Further promotion from JMGS-I was to MMGS-II. The Respondent bank had framed a promotion policy dated 16/04/90 and para No. 11.10 of that promotion policy provided that the maximum number of officers to be considered for promotion for MMGS-II were to be restricted to four times the number of vacancies but in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing the zone of consideration could be enlarged by the Board of Directors of the bank.

On 8th May, 1990 the Respondent bank issued a circular which stated that there were 120 vacancies in MMGS-II. As per the promotion policy of 16.4.1990 a total number of 480 officers could be considered for promotion but in the vacancy circular dated 08.05.1990 it was stated that all the officers in JMGS-I from seniority Nos. 1 to 1218 would be considered for promotion. Consequent to the circular dated 08.05.1990 a total of 1218 officers were considered for promotion out of whom 120, whose names were given in the circular dated 14/08/90(Annexure "C" to the petition) were selected. The Petitioner was also considered for promotion but was not selected. His grievance is that out of the 120 officers selected for promotion 25 were those whose names figured between sl. Nos. 1 to 480 in the seniority list and the rest were those whose names figured between sl. Nos. 481 to 1218 in the seniority list and if only 480 candidates had been considered he would have got the promotion. The Petitioner averred in his petition that as per the promotion policy of the Respondent bank, four factors were to be considered for ascertaining the suitability of the officers for promotion from one scale to another. The said factors were (a) seniority, (b) educational and professional qualifications, (c) performance in scale and (d) potential as identified in the interview. It was also pleaded in the petition that "The Petitioner understands that he has obtained full marks for seniority and educational & Professional Qualifications and has obtained 19 marks out of a total of 30 for performance. Thus, the total marks obtained by the Petitioner are 89 out of a total of 100 marks. The Petitioner further understands that the Petitioner''s name falls within the first 120 if the merit list is prepared from amongst the persons whose names appear between sl. No. 1 to 480 in the seniority list." It was also pleaded by the Petitioner that the 120 vacancies in MMGS-II were of the year 1990 and so the performance of the eligible candidates for the preceding five years was to be considered. Even though his performance had been rated as "Outstanding" by his reporting officer for the years 1985 to 1988 and for three years during the period from 1986-89 he had been directed to perform the duties of officer-in-charge at an Extension counter of the bank, which post is manned by an officer of MMGS-II, but the reviewing officer had erroneously reduced that rating to "Average" for 1985 to 1987 and "above average for 1988. For the year 1989 the performance rating had not been communicated to the Petitioner. The Petitioner claims to have made an appeal to the appellate authority on 24/10/90 (Annexure "D" to the petition) but the same was rejected vide bank''s letter dated 07/01/91 on the ground that:

The rank secured by Shri B.R. Sharma in the promotion process did not entitle him to get promoted to MMGS II keeping in the view the number of vacancies declared.

Thereafter this writ petition was filed on 27th May,1991 with the following prayers:

i) issue a writ in the nature of declaration declaring the resolution of the board of directors of the Respondent bank dated 4.5.1990 enlarging the zone of consideration from 1 to 480 to 1218 as ultra-vires and illegal;

ii) issue a writ in the nature of declaration declaring all promotions made consequent to enlargement of zone consideration by the Respondent as void ab-initio;

iii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to conduct the entire promotion exercise a fresh limiting the zone of consideration to four times the number of vacancies i.e. 480;

iv) issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to re-evaluate /re-assess the performance of the Petitioner during the relevant years i.e. From 1985 to 1989; v) pass any other order, orders as this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The Respondent bank in its counter affidavit while opposing the writ petition claimed that the zone of consideration for filling up of 120 vacancies in MMGS-II was rightly enlarged keeping in view the guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Banking Division in terms of regulation 17 of the Syndicate Bank (Officers) Service Regulations according to which the Board of Directors of the bank was empowered to extend the range for consideration beyond four times the vacancies in order to include superceded officers. It was further claimed that the rationale behind including superceded officers in the range of consideration as an exceptional circumstance was that otherwise the superceded officers will have to be interviewed for every promotion process besides restricting the choice and further that there will be chances of an officer not getting selected in the past getting excluded in the process. It was further claimed that as per the nature of promotion policy followed by the Respondent bank even a junior most officer in the range gets a chance of getting selected by virtue of his performance and qualifications as against the promotion by seniority-cum-merit where the junior officers have a chance for promotion only when a senior officer is found unfit for promotion. Regarding the allegation of the Petitioner that his performance ratings for the years 1986-88 had been erroneously toned down to "Average" or "Above Average" by the reviewing authority the Respondent bank claimed that the Head Office was the final authority in respect of the ratings to be awarded and for that purpose a Committee is constituted by the Chairman and Managing Director of the bank which finally reviews the performance of the officers.

The Petitioner filed a rejoinder in which he admitted that as per the guidelines issued by the Government of India the zone of consideration could be enlarged by including the superceded officers also for consideration for promotion and also that that was an exceptional circumstance but the Respondent bank had not come out with the figures as to how many superceded officers in JMGS-I were there when the process of promotion in respect of 120 vacancies in question was initiated.

It was submitted by the Petitioner, who argued in person, that with the enlargement in the zone of consideration his chances of promotion had been seriously affected.

On the other hand, the case of the Respondent bank as put forth by its counsel is that the zone of consideration for promotion to MMGS-II was increased by the Board of Directors of the bank for good reasons. In this regard my attention was drawn to the Board resolution of 4th May,1990 vide which the following recommendation made in the Board Note(Copy of which was shown to me during the course of hearing of the Petitioner) to increase the zone of consideration beyond four times the number of vacancies in MMGS-II was approved:

We have reviewed the position of the superceded officers in the promotion process held during 1987 for promotion from MMGS III to SMGS IV ,MMGS II to MMGS III and JMGS I to MMGS II and the number of superceded officers are calculated accordingly. The board of directors vide their resolution dated 19.3.1990 were pleased to sanction 120 vacancies in MMGS II and 60 vacancies in MMGS III. similarly 53 vacancies in SMGS IV are also sanctioned vide resolution dated 3.3.19990.

It is felt that by limiting the number of officer as to be considered for promotion to 4 times the number of vacancies an anomalous position will be created, wherein such of those officers who came in the zone of consideration in the earlier promotion process are left out for the proposed promotion process. This situation is neither ethical nor correct and this may create frustration among officers, who have been aspiring for their carrier progression in the organization. So it is appropriate to include all those officers who were superceded in the earlier promotion process, in addition to the 4 times the number of vacancies . In the past the bank had even considered for promotion all those officers who had completed the minimum length of service prescribed for promotion for movement from one scale to another and in the last promotion process with the approval of the board of directors, we had considered for promotion all those officers in a particular batch , if one officer from batch came within 4 times the number of vacancies declared.

Scale No. of vacancies No. of eligible Officers coming within the Zone of consideration restricting to 4 times the No. of vacancies No. of superceded Officers in the earlier promotion Total No. of Officers to be eligible for consideration for the proposed promotion process

JMGS I to MMGS II 120 480 715 1195

MMGS II to MMGS III 60 240 995 1235

MMGS II to SMGS IV 53 212 442 654

Hence it is recommended that all those officers coming within the

1) Seniority No. 1 to 1218 of circular No. 268/88/BC dated 21.9.1988 will be considered for movement from JMGS I to MMGS II.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that since the Petitioner had admittedly been considered for promotion but not selected cannot have any grievance because of his not being promoted since no employee has a fundamental right to be promoted and as far as the enlargement of the zone of consideration is concerned the same might have reduced his chances of promotion but for that reason the promotions made by the bank pursuant to the vacancy circular dated 08/05/90 cannot be challenged. In support of this submission reliance was placed on two judgments of the Supreme Court in "Daulat Ram v. Zila Sahkari Kendra Bank Ltd. And Others" 1991 SCC 476 and Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, .

After having considered the rival submissions I am of the view that this writ petition is liable to be rejected. The Petitioner''s main grievance was that his chances of promotion had been receded to a great extent because of enlargement of the zone of consideration by including therein the superceded officers of the past promotion process and if that had not been done he would have got the promotion. It is now well settled and as was rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondent bank also that an employee has only a right to be considered for promotion. The Petitioner here was considered for promotion to MMGS-II but he did not get promotion since the rank secured by him did not entitle him to get promoted keeping in view the number of vacancies declared. It is not the case of the Petitioner that he was denied promotion by the competent authority for some mala fide reasons. It was also rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondent, relying upon the above referred judgments of the Supreme Court that mere reduction of chance of promotion cannot be made the basis for challenging the denial of promotion. The Petitioner in any event had allowed the selection process to go on and had approached the Court only after the results had been declared and he had not been found fit for promotion and that conduct of his also disentitles him to the reliefs prayed for. Even otherwise, it being the Petitioner''s own case that for the period from 1985-88 his performance ratings had been "Average" and "Above Average" and nothing having been brought on record to come to the conclusion that that had been done with mala fide intention by the final authority in that regard he cannot even otherwise successfully challenge denial of promotion to him.

This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.