Judgment:
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE28H DAY OF APRIL, 2015 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN WRIT PETITION NO.690 OF2013(S-PRO) .. PETITIONER BETWEEN Sri Nagaraj S/o Sri Bheemayya Aged about 59 years Manager Liaison DRT State Bank of Hyderabad I.F.B, Richmond Road Bangalore-560 001. R/at 75/8, 3rd Main 5th Block, Banashankari 3rd Stage Bangalore-560 085. (By Sri G G Basappa, Adv. for M/s. L Srinivas Babu & Associates) AND1 2. State Bank of Hyderabad Head Office Gunfoundry Hyderabad-500 001 Represented by its Managing Director Sri G Madanmohan Rao General Manager Deputed to State Bank of Travankur Inspection Department 2 Head Office Trivendrum-695 001. (By Sri S K M Shetty, Adv. for R1 and R2) ..RESPONDENTS This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the circular letter dated 14.03.2012 issued by R-1 vide Annx.-L and directs the R-1 to give promotion to the petitioner from the date his junior is promoted and grant all consequential benefits such as increments and extend monetary benefits to the petitioner. This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the court made the following: ORDER
The petitioner was appointed as a Cashier-Typist- Clerk in the respondent-State Bank of Hyderabad on 01.07.1978. As per the promotion policy of the bank, petitioner was duly promoted from time to time. In the year 1998 he was promoted as an officer Middle Management Grade Scale –III. On completion of five years in Scale-III post, petitioner became eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Management Grade Scale-IV cadre. The case of the petitioner has been considered for promotion ever since after he became eligible in the year 2003. However, in none of the selections which were held by the respondent-Bank 3 since the year 2003, the petitioner was selected to be promoted on the Scale-IV post. According to the petitioner, he had filed representations as well as appeals before the respondents-authorities with regard to his non-promotion. Ultimately, with regard to the promotions for the year 2011, when it was communicated by the Deputy General Manager on 14.3.2012 that seven persons had been promoted on Scale IV cadre and name of the petitioner did not find place, he filed this writ petition with the following prayers: “(1) ISSUE a writ of certiorari or any other writ quashing the Circular letter bearing No.CIRLCTR/2011-12/83 dated:
14. 03.2012 issued by the first respondent produced at ANNEXURE-L and directs the Respondent No.1 to give promotion to the petitioner from the date his junior is promoted and grant all consequential benefits such as increments and extend monetary benefits the petitioner. (2) ISSUE, a writ of mandamus or any other direction directing the respondent No.1 to take suitable action against the second respondent the representation submitted by the petitioner dated:
04. 03-2006 produced at ANNEXURE- B. pursuance to in of 4 (3) ISSUE, any other writ or direction that deems fit as necessary to meet the ends of justice.” 2. I have heard Sri.G.G.Basappa, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.S.K.M.Shetty, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank and I have perused the records. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.
3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner has been eligible for promotion ever since 2003 and despite his good work and conduct in service over the last 25 years from 1978 to 2003 and thereafter, he has not been promoted. In support of such contention, learned counsel relies on a certificate issued by the bank in 2003 with regard to his good conduct of service of 25 years.
4. It is not disputed that for every selection petitioner was found eligible for consideration but was not selected for promotion. The petitioner has not 5 challenged the promotions made from the year 2003 to the year 2010 and has only challenged the promotion made in the year 2011, communicated on 14.3.2012. For this year, it has been stated that out of seven persons promoted, three had not completed the mandatory assignment of rural/semi urban service and one had been placed under suspension for over a year, and thus such promotion could not be justified. It is also contended that more than 107 officers junior to the petitioner have been promoted, ignoring the case of the petitioner, who was duly eligible for such promotion. He has thus prayed that the promotion list declared on 14.3.2012 be quashed and the petitioner may be promoted on Grade IV post with effect from the date when his juniors had been promoted.
5. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that selection is made from amongst the persons found eligible and the criteria for selection is well defined, which and has been followed every year. It is contended that in the entire writ petition there is no 6 allegation with regard to the bank not following the criteria for promotion except that the names of three persons who have been promoted by communication dated 14.3.2012 had not completed the rural/semi urban service and one had been kept under suspension for over a year. With regard to the same, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that as per the circular of the bank dated 15.10.2011, which is not under challenge in this petition, candidates who were eligible and had not completed such service in rural/semi urban areas for no fault of theirs as they had never been posted by the bank at such places, would also be eligible for such promotion, but if they are selected for promotion the same would be subject to their completing such service within a specified time and before taking charge on the promotional post.
6. As regards the person who was under suspension for one year and was promoted, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that such officer was considered for promotion only 7 after conclusion of enquiry after which he was taken back in regular service and as such, the effect of suspension had been washed off. It is thus contended that there cannot be any fault found with the order of promotion communicated on 14.3.2012. Lastly, it has been contended that the order of promotion granted by the competent authority is not under challenge in this petition and it is only the communication dated 14.3.2012 issued by the Deputy General Manager, which is under challenge and thus the promotions which have already been given effect to, cannot be quashed in this writ petition.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that no interference is called for in this writ petition. At the outset, it may be pointed out that respondent No.2, who is the General Manager of the Bank, has been impleaded by name as party- respondent without there being any specific allegation against him. Such conduct of the petitioner in 8 impleading a senior officer of the bank by name as a party-respondent without any reason, is deprecated by this Court.
8. On merits, it may be stated that eligibility for promotion to the post of Senior Management Grade Scale-IV cadre is different from suitability for grant of such promotion. For promotion to a post of a Senior Management Cadre, comparative suitability is what is required to be considered. It is not the case of the petitioner that for any of the selections, ever after 2003 when he had become eligible, any person who has been granted promotion was found less suitable than the petitioner and even then the case of the petitioner had been ignored. After a particular level, it is not the seniority but suitability for the post, which is to be taken into consideration. It may be true that persons junior to the petitioner had been promoted ever since 2003, but their selection can be challenged only if the petitioner was found to be more suitable and yet they had been promoted. Such is not the case here. One 9 ground of challenge to the order of promotion taken by the petitioner is that three of the seven persons who had been promoted had not completed the assignment of rural/semi urban service. The same has been properly explained by the respondents on the basis of the circular dated 15.10.2011. As regards the other ground that one person who was under suspension for one year and has been promoted, it may only be said that suspension in itself is no punishment and once after completion of enquiry, if an employee is exonerated or given minor punishment, he would not be debarred from being considered for promotion.
9. The petitioner nowhere claims that any of the selected candidates were found to be lesser suitable than the petitioner. In fact, the respondents have specifically stated that the cut off marks for promotion for the year 2011 were 78.90 whereas the total marks awarded to the petitioner were 70.05. As such, on merits, it is clear that petitioner was not found to be 10 higher in merit than those who have been selected for promotion.
10. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the prayers made in this writ petition do not deserve to be granted.
11. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- JUDGE bkp