P. Sathasivam, J.
1. Canara Bank Officers' Union represented by its General Secretary has filed the above writ petition questioning the promotion policy to Middle Management Grade Scale II and Scale III for the year 1990- 91 as per Memo No. 13/91, dated January 16, 1991, on various grounds.
2. The case of the union is as follows: According to them, the petitioner is a trade union, registered under the Trade Unions Act and it represents about 3,500 officer employees out of about 10,000 officer employees employed in the respondents bank. The respondent is a nationalised bank and is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The respondent-bank in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and with the previous sanction of the Central Government have made Canara Bank (Officers) Service Regulations. Clause 17 of the Regulations provides that promotion to all the grades of officers in the bank shall be made in accordance with the policy laid down by the Board from time to time having regard to the guidelines of the Government if any. The respondent announced promotion policy to Middle Management Grade Scale II and Scale III for the year 1990-91 as per memo, dated January 16, 1991. Under the said policy, there are two channels of promotion from Junior management Grade Scale I to Middle Management Scale II. The first channel of promotion is called 'Test Channel' and the second channel of promotion is called 'Interview Channel.' The officers can opt for only one channel. All Officers who have been appointed as Probationary Officers on or before 1981 are eligible for consideration of promotion from Junior Management Scale I to Middle Management Scale II. Similarly, for promotion from Middle Management Scale II to Middle Management Scale III only officers who have been recruited/promoted to Seale II on or before December 31, 1984 are eligible for consideration. This eligibility clause is in complete contravention of the policy under Regulation 17 which provides that officers who have completed seven years in Scale I and five years in Scale II are eligible for promotion. For promotion Scale II on account of the compartmentalisation of the channels of promotion, an officer has to confine his choice to one of the two channels. Thus, there is discrimination in the matter of promotion to Scale III and to Scale II. This discrimination has no nexus with the object of making promotions. Further, there is no justification for compelling the officers eligible for promotion to Scale II to restrict their choice either to test channel or to interview channel. On the contrary both the channels should be made available to all eligible officers. Further, rural service was implemented as a pre-condition for promotion under the earlier policies. The officers who have not accepted rural service postings have been debarred for promotion and once for all denied their promotional opportunities. The allotment of 25 per cent of the total marks for the interview is unreasonable and arbitrary. The impugned promotion also does not make any reservation for SC/ST categories. In such circumstances, having no other effective remedy, the petitioner union has filed the above writ petition.
3. The respondent have filed a counter affidavit. It runs as follows; The respondent by virtue of being under the control of Ministry of Finance, Government of India, follow the guidelines and directions issued by the Government. In the absence of averment of India as a party to the present proceedings, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The promotion policy for the year 1990-91 was announced by the bank on October 16, 1991. By virtue of Regulation 17(1) and in accordance with the guidelines of the Ministry of Finance, the respondent-bank made necessary rules. The promotion policy for the year 1990-91 provided for promotion under 2 channels for officers from Scale I to Scale II. They are test channel and interview channel. In 1990-91 out of 132 vacancies in interview channel, 20 vacancies were ear-marked for officers who have submitted appraisal for last 3 years and who have not been promoted, In the case of SC/ST officers, a concession of 5 marks was given, qualifying marks for them is only 35 per cent. Those officers who have completed rural service as required under the regulations alone will be eligible for promotion. The respondent has adopted fair policy of promotion in the promotion of officer employees. Regulation 17 is subject to the modifications made by the Board in accordance with the guidelines given by the Government of India. It is open to the bank to take into consideration of aspects and restrict the number of officers contesting for promotion on the ground of availability of vacancies. Therefore, the policy laid down regarding eligibility and zone of consideration is followed, hence the same cannot be challenged. Pursuant to the guidelines issued by the Government, the Board of the respondent-bank has framed the promotion policy. Hence, the formulation of two channels of selection is reasonable, fair and justified. The promotion policy is formulated in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government of India and in a manner best suited to its requirements. The promotion is by selection when once it is accepted that promotion can be by selection, then the method of selection so long as it is not arbitrary or capricious is not subject to any other scrutiny. The officers according to the Government guidelines, have to complete 2 years of rural service to become eligible for promotion through JMG 1 to MMG 2 and it has been in operation with effect from June 1, 1988 for promotion from MMG 2 to MMG 3. The experience of rural service is considered important by the bank and hence it is submitted by the respondent that such condition is not bar for promotional opportunities. The petitioner-union is also a party and they have signed the agreement with the Indian Banks Association at the time of wage revision agreeing for promotion in public sector banks without any weightage for senior and promotions to be only based on merit. With these averments, the respondent-bank prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
4. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard Sri C.R. Chandrasekaran for the Officers' Union and Sri K. Karthick for the respondent-bank.
5. Sri C.R. Chandrasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the Canara Bank Officers Union has raised the following contentions:
(i) Because of the two channels prescribed in the promotion policy for promotion from Junior Management Grade Scale 1 to Middle Management Grade Scale 2, an officer has to confine his choice to one of the two channels, namely, test channel or interview channel, thus there is a discrimination in the matter of promotion to Scale 3 and to Scale 2.
(ii) Awarding of marks for leave records and rural service was not fully made in terms of the guidelines issued by the Government of India.
(iii) Marks allotted for the interview which works out to 25 per cent of the total marks is unreasonable and arbitrary; And
(iv) The impugned promotion policy does not make any reservation for SC/ST categories; hence the same is unconstitutional and void.
6. On the other hand, Sri V. Karthick, learned counsel for the bank, after taking me through the impugned promotion policy of the bank for the year 1990-91, dated January 16, 1991, would contend that the chance of promotion is not a condition of service. He also contended that in the absence of any allegation favouritism etc., promotion cannot be canvassed in the writ proceedings. The method of evaluation test prescribed are reasonable. The policy adopted by the bank for the year 1991 is one similar to the policy followed during 1990 which was upheld by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3462 of 1990, dated July 11, 1991.
7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions.
8. The respondent-bank is Nationalised Bank under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. The Board of Directors of the bank in consultation with Reserve Bank of India and with the previous approval of Government of India have framed service regulations in respect of the officers called the Canara Bank Officers Service Regulations, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations). Among other regulations, Regulation 17 provides for framing policy for promotion of officers from one grade to another. The promotion policy for the year 1990-91 was announced by the bank vide impugned Memo No. 13 of 1991, dated January 16, 1991. Regulation 17 reads thus:
'17. Promotions: (1) Promotions to all grades of officer in the bank shall be made in accordance with the policy laid down by the Board from time to time having regard to the guidelines of the Government, if any.
(2) For the avoidance of doubts, it is clarified that this regulation shall also apply to promotions of any category of employees to the Junior Management Grade.'
It is the case of the respondent bank that by virtue of the powers under the regulations, namely Regulation 17(1) and in accordance with the guidelines of the Ministry of Finance made the following rule.:
'The number of persons to be considered for promotion from one scale to another shall normally be restricted to three or four times the number of posts for which promotions are being considered and that, in case any relaxation in this criteria is required under exceptional circumstances, this may be done by the Board of Directors after recording the reasons in writing.'
9. In the light of the rival contentions, I have carefully considered the impugned promotion policy for the year 1991. It provides two channels for promotion of officers from Scale I to Scale II. They are:
(i) test channel ; and
(ii) interview channel.
It is explained that in the test channel, a written test will be held and based on the marks obtained by the officers and on an appraisal of the performance for a period of three years prior to the date they will be considered or promotion. In the interview channel, the officers will be subjected to an interview and their merit assessed by the interview committee and after taking into consideration their performance in the previous years, they will be promoted. It is further seen from the counter-affidavit that the vacancies from Scale I to Scale II was assessed as 276 and from Scale II to Scale III. 150 vacancies were identified for the year 1995. Though it is stated that there is discrimination in the matter of promotion to Scale III and to Scale II, I am unable to accept the said contention for the following reasons. The particulars furnished show that out of 132 vacancies in interview channels 20 vacancies were ear marked for officers who had submitted appraisal for the last three years and who had not been promoted. Likewise out of 150 vacancies, 139 for general officers and 11 for specialist officers were identified for promotion from Scale II to Scale III. In the test channel for promotion from Scale I to Scale II the officers who had opted to undergo the written test prescribed by the bank were allotted marks and those who secured 40 per cent were declared successful. However, in the case of SC/ST officers it is brought to my notice that a concession of 5 marks was given and the qualifying marks for them is only 35 per cent. It is also specifically made that those officers who had completed rural service as required under the regulations alone will be eligible for promotion. It is further explained that in the interview channel officers who have submitted appraisals were interviewed by a committee consisting of two executives and a SC/ST officer not below the rank of Scale II. Out of two marks of 40, 27 marks were allotted for performance appraisal 3 for leave record and 10 marks for interview. The procedure adopted for promotion from Scale II to Scale III was only interview channel. There 36 marks were given for performance appraisal for three years, 4 marks for leave records and 10 marks for interview, Here again, the interview committee consisted of two executives and one SC/ST officer not below the rank of Scale III. Grading awarded by the interview committee was converted into marks and added together to arrive at the marks secured in the interview. As observed earlier, it is clear that a fair policy of promotion has been adopted by the bank in the promotion of officer employees. The contention that while adopting two tests there is a discrimination in the matter of promotion to Scale III and Scale II is liable to be rejected.
10. A perusal of the particulars furnished also shows that the respondent-bank ascertained the vacancies as also the number of officers who had completed 7 years and five years respectively as on December 31, 1990. Inasmuch as there were large number of officers who had already submitted the appraisal and did not get promoted, the zone of consideration was restricted to as that of previous year, i.e., only officers who had been promoted/recruited as probationary officers on or before December 31, 1981, were made eligible. Ii is also demonstrated before me that though as per guidelines the number of persons to be included within the zone of consideration for promotion has to be restricted to 3 to 4 times of number of posts, more than 2,500 candidates are brought within the zone of consideration. Accordingly, I accept the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that the bank has taken a wide range and given chance for more number of officers and brought 2,500 officer employees within the zone of consideration, by including the officer employees who have joined as officer/ promoted as officer on or before December 31, 1981 eligible for the promotion which is nearly 7 times of number of posts. In such a circumstance, it cannot be contended that bank had not followed the guidelines given by the Government of India. Similar principle was also applied in the promotion from Scale II to Scale III. Here again, the bank had made 1300 Scale II officers eligible for promotion; which according to them is more than 8 limes of number of posts. It is also brought to my notice that the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, in supressession of all other guidelines, in their letter, dated June 23, 1986, issued guidelines under Regulation 17 of the officers service regulations. It is the case of the -respondent-bank that pursuant to the above guidelines, the Board of the respondent-bank has framed the promotion policy. As rightly contended, the provision of promotion by either of the channels give an option to eligible officer to opt for one mode. It is also brought to my notice and specifically asserted in the counter affidavit that the system of option for promotion was introduced after discussion with the recognised officers association of the bank and it satisfies the aspirations of the majority of the officers. By compartmentalisation of candidate for selection, one based on interview and the other based on written test, cannot be termed as denial of due opportunity to the eligible officers. Accordingly, I hold that the formulation of two channels of selection is quite reasonable, fair and justifiable. In State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni and Ors., 1981 I LLJ 433. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held, in Para. 16, at page 442 that:
'..... Mere chances of promotion are not conditions of service and the fact that there was reduction in the chances of promotion did not tantamount to a change in the conditions of service. A right to be considered for promotion is a term of service, but mere chances of promotion are not...'
11. Regarding the other contention, namely, rural service is a pre-condition for promotion, it is specifically stated by the respondent that in accordance with the Government guidelines the officers have to complete two years of rural service to become eligible for promotion to Junior Management Grade I to Middle Management Grade II and it has been in operation with effect from June 1, 1988, for promotion from Middle Management Grade II to Middle Management Grade III. The officer has to put a minimum of three years service as an officer in rural and/or semi urban branch inclusive of two years rural branch service prescription for from Junior Management Grade I to Middle Management Grade. In Para. 15 of the counter-affidavit the respondent-bank has specifically stated that the experience of rural service is considered important by the bank and such condition is not bar for promotional opportunities. They also denied the contention that the policy of promotion does not make any reserve for SC/ST candidates. In Para. 18 of the counter-affidavit, it is staled that the respondent has been strictly following the guidelines of the Government of India in regard to policy of promotion of SC/ST officers/employees. In such a circumstance, the contra argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected. Even in the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition, absolutely there is no allegation such as favouratism to a particular person etc. In the absence of any such averment, it is settled law that the promotion cannot be canvassed before this Court. I have already stated that formulation of norms are not unreasonable or arbitrary. The method of evaluation undoubtedly rests with the management. In this regard, it is useful to refer the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India v. Mohd. Mynuddin : (1988)ILLJ142SC . The following observation of their Lordships is relevant, in Para. 5, at pp. 144-145:
'Whenever promotion to a higher post is to be made on the basis of merit no officer can claim promotion to the higher post as a matter of right by virtue of seniority alone with effect from the date on which his juniors are promoted. It is not sufficient that in his confidential reports it is recorded that his services are 'satisfactory.' An officer may be capable of discharging the duties of the post held by him satisfactorily but he may not be fit for the higher post. Before any such promotion can be effected it is the duty of the management to consider the case of the officer concerned on the basis of the relevant materials. If promotion has been denied arbitrarily or without any reason ordinarily the Court can issue a direction to the management to consider the case of the officer concerned for promotion but it cannot issue a direction to promote the officer concerned to the higher post without giving an opportunity to the management to consider the question, of promotion. There is good reason for taking this view. The Court is not by its very nature competent to appreciate the abilities, qualities or attributes necessary for the task, office or duty of every kind of post in the modern world and it would be hazardous for it to undertake the responsibility of assessing, whether a person is fit for being promoted to a higher post which is to be filled up by selection. The duties of such posts may need skills of different kinds scientific, technical, financial, industrial, commercial, administrative, educational, etc. The methods of evaluation of the abilities or the competence of persons to be selected for such posts have also become nowadays very much refined and sophisticated and such evaluation should, therefore, in the public interest ordinarily be left to be done by the individual or a committee consisting of persons who have the knowledge of the requirements of a given post to be nominated by the employer. Of course the process of selection adopted by them should always be honest and fair. It is only when the process of selection is vitiated on the ground of bias, mala fides or any other similar vitiating circumstances other considerations will arise.....'.
I have already stated absolutely there is no allegation of bias, mala fides or any other similar vitiating circumstance. In such a circumstance, as observed by their Lordships, the Court is not by its very nature competent to appreciate the abilities, qualities or attributes and it is not desirable to undertake the responsibility of assessing whether a person is for being promoted to a higher post which is to be filled up by selection. In a matter like this, the scope of judicial review is very limited as observed by Their Lordships in the case of All India State Bank Officers' Federation v. Union of India : (1997)ILLJ419SC
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very much relied on a decision of the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered in W.P No. 2748 of 1992 Officers' Congress, represented by its Secretary v. Government of India and Anr. Before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the Canara Bank Officers' Congress represented by its Secretary filed the above writ petition challenging Memo No. 31 of 1993, dated March 2, 1993, in respect of promotion policy for the years 1991 to 1994 from the cadre of Junior Management Grade Scale I to Middle Management Grade Scale II and Middle Management Grade Scale II to Middle Management Grade Scale III as arbitrary and illegal. No doubt, learned single Judge ultimately allowed the writ petition of union and quashed the promotion policy framed by the bank for the years 1991, 1992 and 1993. While allowing the writ petition, the learned Judge has observed that the promotions already made shall not be disturbed and the future promotions shall not be made until fresh policy is evolved. After going through the entire order of the learned single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court as well as the details furnished by the respondent before this Court, with respect, I am unable to share the view expressed therein. I have already stated that the promotion policy in our case is based on the Regulation 17 as well as in accordance with guidelines issued by the Government of India. I am also satisfied that the respondent bank has fully complied with the said guidelines, more particularly with regard to rural service and given due regard to reservation for SC and ST. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank has also brought to my notice that the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has entertained an appeal in Writ Appeal No, 290 of 1996, against the order of the learned single Judge and suspended the directions issued by the learned single Judge, In spite of this, I am satisfied that the impugned promotion policy framed by their bank is in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government of India. Further, it meets the aspirations of majority of the officers of the bank, It is also not disputed that prior to the formulation of the promotion policy the majority of the recognised officers association were consulted. The respondent-bank has also asserted that the petitioner-union is also a party and they have signed the agreement with the Indian Banks Association at the time of wage revision agreeing for promotion in public-sector banks without any weightage for senior and promotions to be only based on merit. Further, the impugned promotion policy is similar to policy declared in the year 1990. The promotion policy of the year 1990 was approved and upheld by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3462 of 1990, dated July 11, 1991 (Canara Bank Officers 'Congress (Regd) represented by its Assistant General Secretary, Madras 17 v. Canara Bank, Head Office, J. C Road, Bangalore).
13. Under these circumstances, I hold that the impugned promotion policy is fair, reasonable and in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government of India. I also hold that the bank has considered the aspect of experience in rural service and it (bank) has been strictly following the Government of India guidelines in accordance with the policy of promotion of SC/ST officers and employees. In the light of what is stated above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and consequently the same is dismissed. No costs. W.M.P. No. 4908 of 1991 is also dismissed.