Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1941 WP(C).No.12803 OF 2019(A) PETITIONER/S: K.APARNA SAGAR AGED 31 YEARS D/O. P.KESAVAN, DEPUTY MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, VALIAMALA BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 547 RESIDING AT 101, NCC NAGAR, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005. BY ADVS. SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE CHARIMAN STATE BANK OF INDIA, STATE BANK BHAVAN, MADAME CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI-400 021. 2 CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CIRCLE, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 012. 3 REGIONAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, RBO IV, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1-3 BY SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC, SBI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: . .
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who got qualified in the written test in the selection conducted for appointment to MMGS III is aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the respondents to permit her to participate in the remaining process of selection and in considering her case for promotion.
2. The petitioner joined the State Bank of India
as a Probationary Officer on 16.09.2013. On promotion she joined the post of Assistant Manager on 19.05.2016. She was granted further promotion as Deputy Manager with effect from 28.09.2016. As per Ext.P1 order, she was transferred from Civil Station Thiruvananthapuram to Valiyamala Branch. It is stated that though the
order of transfer was issued on 28.06.2017 she was
relieved from Kudappanakkunnu only on 08.09.2017 as per Ext.P3 letter and she could report at the transferred station- Valiyamala only on 11.09.2017. :3:
3. On 30.10.2018, the respondents issued Ext.P5 notification inviting applications from candidates eligible for promotion as on 01.04.2019 as per extant promotion policy, for promotion to various grades. Petitioner submitted her application for promotion from MMGS-II to MMGS-III, and appeared in the online examination conducted on 20.01.2019. She was qualified and included at serial no.134 in Ext.P6 list of
candidates qualified. Even though the interview schedule was notified as per Ext.P7 on 22.04.2019, her name was not included in it. This writ petition was filed at that stage. On the basis of interim order she has appeared in the interview.
4. The reason stated for not including the
petitioner in Ext.P7 list for interview was that she did not complete 2 years' service in Semi Urban/Rural area. According to the petitioner, she would have been
able to complete the said service in case she was relieved and allowed to report at Valiyamala immediately on her transfer as per Ext.P1 order on
28.06.2017. :4:
5. The petitioner submits that she was never
responsible for the delay in relieving her and she cannot be penalised for the administrative delay in relieving her after Ext.P1 order and that at any rate she cannot be compelled to appear in the written test again.
6. The respondents have filed a statement, according to which the petitioner is not eligible for promotion as she has not completed two years of service in Rural/Semi Urban Branch, which is mandatory. It is stated that she would be eligible to appear in
the examination only on completion of the said mandatory period. It is stated that even though the transfer order was issued in September 2017, petitioner was not relieved immediately on account of administrative exigencies. According to the respondents, for promotion to MMGS III she should have 2½ years service' in the MMGS II out of which 2 years shall be in the Rural/Semi Urban branch. It is also stated that in case any official is found not eligible for promotion for reasons not attributable to them, :5: they would be considered for future promotion from the date of completion of mandatory period of service and they would be placed in the promoted scale with backdated effect protecting the seniority. Therefore it is stated that no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner by denial of promotion.
7. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit stating that she was not responsible for the administrative exigencies in relieving her. According to her when she has passed the written examination, it
would be unfair to compel her to appear in the examination again in order to prove her merit. Therefore according to her she is entitled to be
considered for the selection treating the service in Rural/Semi Urban branch from the date of her transfer. It is stated that she has completed 2 years, two months and 27 days and the shortage which was occurred due to the administrative exigency has to be made good by reckoning the period of delay towards her service.
8. Learned Senior counsel relied on the judgment
in P.N.Premachandran vs. State of Kerala and others : :6: AIR 2004 SC 255 and the judgment in WP(C) No.29430/2007. But I find that those judgments would not apply to the present case for the reason that a provision for promotion policy is contained in Ext.P4.
9. On considering the contentions on either side,
I find that the petitioner does not fulfill the conditions under the mandatory provisions in the promotion policy Ext.P4 which admittedly governs the
promotions from MMGS II to MMGS III.
10. Ext.P4 is admittedly the promotion policy for the general cadre officers for promotions to MMGS-II & MMGS-III. Para.5 provides for the eligibility criteria. Clause (a) to (e) thereof provides for the minimum
requirements to be met by an officer. Clause (a) service eligibility criteria, provides that 2 years and six months' service is required in the existing grade for the officers as on the date of eligibility for promotion to the grades of MMGS-II & MMGS-III in the merit channel. Under clause (b)it is provided that the candidates should have a minimum of two years' residual service with the bank as on the date of eligibility
:7: (ie. 1st April). Relevant provision in Clause (d) of para.5 reads as follows:
5(d) Mandatory Assignments Besides the required number of years of service in the existing grade, the officers are expected to have acquired certain specific work experiences before they are considered for promotion to the next grade. Therefore, for consideration for promotion to MMGS-III grade, the completion of the under noted assignments will be mandatory. Promotion to Scale Mandatory Assignment For MMGS-II Nil For MMGS III 2 years' service in Rural/Semi-urban branch(es) The stipulation regarding mandatory assignment are effective from 01.04.2017 onwards. RUSU assignment will not be applicable for officers recruited under PWD category. Specialist officers, recruited laterally as banking specialists with a provision for conversion to general category, will be exempted from RUSU assignment.
(I) No exemption from mandatory assignment will be
granted to officers. They will be considered eligible for promotion only after satisfactory completion of relative mandatory assignment. In case an officer has not completed the required mandatory assignment by the date of eligibility for promotion to the relevant grade, he will not be considered for promotion in the ensuing promotion exercise. However, such officers who failed to complete the mandatory assignment for reasons not attributable to them will be considered in future promotion with backdated effect. xxxxxxxx
11. Therefore as per Clause (d) a candidate should have 2 years' service in Rural/Semi-Urban Branch for promotion to MMGS-III. Sub clause (i) thereof further :8: provides that no exemption would be granted to officers
from mandatory assignment and that they would be considered eligible for promotion only after satisfactory completion of the requisite mandatory period. The shortage occurred for reasons not attributable to the Officer would be considered in
future promotion with backdated effect. Therefore there is a specific prohibition in paragraph 5(d) for those who have not completed the mandatory assignment of 2 years service in Rural/Semi Urban branch to be considered for promotion, irrespective of the reason. Petitioner did not admittedly fulfill the mandatory requirement as on the date of eligibility. Though it was apparently on account of the delay in relieving her consequent to her transfer, she was not eligible to apply or appear in the written examination. When the promotion policy is admittedly governed by Ext.P4 and that policy prescribes the minimum service as well as the period of manadatory assignment, petitioner is expected to be aware of her ineligibility. She applied for the post and appeared in the competitive :9: examination knowing fully well that there is shortage of prescribed service and the mandatory period of assignment for promotion to MMGS III. The promotion policy which insists mandatory assignment of Rural/Semi Urban service also provides for the situations where officers are unable to complete that period on reasons not attributable to them. Sub clause (i) under clause
(d) provides for their consideration in the future process and promotion with backdate.
12. In the statement the respondents have already stated that in the event of a finding that failure to complete the mandatory semi urban service was for reasons not attributable to the petitioner, that would
be made good in the future promotion. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents petitioner has not challenged the provisions contained in para 5(d) of Ext.P4.
13. Therefore just because she was allowed to
appear in the written examination and because she passed the written examination, no right would be conferred on her to participate in the remaining
:10: process of selection or for grant of promotion contrary to the provisions in Ext.P4. Without assailing the validity of the provisions in Ext.P4, the fact that she would have to appear in the examination again to prove her merit cannot also be a valid ground as she was not eligible to appear in the examination.
In the circumstances of the case, no interference is warranted. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. Sd/- P.V.ASHA JUDGE rkc APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF ANNUAL TRANSFER FOR THE PERIOD 2017-18. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPUTER GENERATED TRANSFER TRACKING SYSTEM DATED 2.11.2018. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.BR/MISC/7 THAT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER OF KUDAPPANAKUNNU DATED 8.9.17. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE CIRCULAR PERTAINING TO PROMOTION POLICE FOR THE OFFICERS MMGS II TO III DATED 6.3.2018.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLICATION OF THE DATE OF
THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION BEARING
NO.CRPD/SAT/PROM/18-19/P&C/135 DATED30.10.2018. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE LIST OF CANDIDATES QUALIFIED IN WRITTEN TEST FOR PROMOTION FROM MMGS II TO III UNDER GENERAL CADRES.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW SCHEDULE PUBLISHED ON 22.4.2019 FOR PROMOTION TO MMGS III UPTO 2.5.2019. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EBFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 24.4.2019. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER OF FORWARDING EXT.P8 THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE MANAGER HR TO THE PETITIONER BY E-MAIL DATED 22.4.2019. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPUTER GENERATED BIODATA OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE TOUR APPROVER OF THE PETITIONER'S DETAILS