REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5683 OF 2008 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.2757/07]

K. M. Mishra … Appellant

Versus

Central Bank of India & Ors.       … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

AFTAB ALAM, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. A dispute over promotion to the post of Chief Manager, Rajbhasha in

Senior Manager Grade, Scale IV in the Central Bank of India has brought

this matter to this  Court.  Respondent No.5 was granted promotion to the

post  on 19  May 1997 in  preference  to  the  Appellant.  He challenged the

promotion given to the respondent before the Bombay High Court in Writ

1

Petition No. 1412 of 1997. The High Court dismissed the writ petition by

judgment and order dated 24 November 2006. This appeal is filed against

the judgment of the High Court.  

3. It would be useful to state at the beginning certain basic facts that are

admitted or are, at any rate, undeniable as that would keep us from straying

into issues that have no relevance to the dispute giving rise to this appeal.

The  promotion  from  Middle  Management  Grade  (Scale  III)  to  Senior

Management  Grade  (Scale  IV)  is  made  on  the  principle  of  merit-cum-

seniority from among officers who have completed five years’ satisfactory

service  in  MMG scale  III.  The Bank’s  Promotion  Policy for  Officers  in

clause 3.3 provides as follows.

“3.3.  Promotion  from  Middle  Management  Grade Scale III to Senior Management Grade Scale IV -- For promotion from Middle Management Grade Scale III to Senior  Management  Grade Scale  IV, an officer  should have  completed  a  minimum of  5  years  of  satisfactory service in Middle Management Grade Scale III.”

The selection from among the eligible candidates,  i.e.,  officers who have

completed the qualifying service of five years in MMG Scale III is made on

the  basis  of  an  interview and  annual  Performance  Appraisal  Ratings  for

three  preceding  years.  For  the  promotion  in  question,  the  appellant  and

respondent  no.  5,  both  of  whom  had  completed  five  years’  qualifying

2

service in MMG Scale III were assessed in the same way. In the interview

both  the  appellant  and  respondent  No.5  were  awarded  30  marks.  In  the

annual  PARs,  however,  though  the  appellant  had  ‘Very Good’,  same as

respondent no.5 for the year 1994-95, for the other two years 1995-96 and

1996-97 he had only ‘Good’ against ‘Very Good’ obtained by respondent

no.5.  The remark ‘Very Good’ carried 32 marks and ‘Good’ 24 marks. Thus

the Performance Appraisal Ratings of the appellant averaged out to 26.6 and

that of respondent No.5 to 32. In this way, out of 100 the appellant had 56.6

marks as against 62.0 secured by respondent No.5.  Respondent No.5 was

accordingly selected and promoted to the post.

4. The appellant after unsuccessfully challenging the promotion granted

to respondent no.5 before the Bombay High Court has brought the matter to

this Court.

5. From the judgment coming under appeal,  it  appears that before the

High Court the promotion granted to respondent No.5 was assailed on one

of  the  grounds  that  respondent  No.5  did  not  possess  the  requisite

educational qualifications.  It was stated before the High Court that there

were three options in  regard to educational  qualifications and respondent

No.5 came in the third option that required a second class Master’s degree

in  Economics/Commerce  in  Hindi  medium  with  English  as  an  elective

3

subject at Bachelor’s degree level.  It was submitted before the High Court

that  respondent  No.5  did  not  fulfil  the  requirement  of  educational

qualifications  and he was wrongly given the promotion.  The High Court

considered the submission and rejected it holding that respondent No.5 duly

fulfilled the academic qualifications as well. Apparently, however, the High

Court  was  not  informed  and  it  was  completely  overlooked  that  the

educational qualifications referred to by the appellant pertained to the entry

level post of Hindi Officer in Scale I.   

6. Since  the  issue  of  the  educational  qualifications  came  under

discussion in the High Court judgment, before this Court it has been vastly

expanded  and  turned  into  practically  the  main  plank  of  attack  to  the

promotion given to respondent no.5. A number of affidavits have been filed

both by the appellant and respondent No.5 bringing on record his Master’s

degree, the Bachelor level marks-sheets and courses of studies etc. of Agra

University (from where respondent No.5 took his Graduation and Master’s

degrees).  On the basis  of  the  affidavits  and the enclosed  documents,  the

appellant seeks to contend before the Court that though satisfying the first

part of the educational criteria of having a Master’s degree in Commerce in

Hindi medium, respondent no.5 did not have English as an elective subject

at the Bachelor degree level. Mr. A. K. Srivastava, learned senior advocate,

4

appearing  for  the  appellant  set  forth  before  the Court  in  great  detail  the

various documents obtained from the Agra University contending that the

claim of respondent  no.  5 that  he had elective English  at  the Bachelor’s

level was not borne out from the University documents. Needless to say that

on behalf of respondent No.5 it is equally strenuously argued that he fully

satisfied the educational criteria and he had English as one of the subjects at

the Graduate level.

7. In  our  considered  view  the  matter  of  educational  qualification  of

respondent No.5 is a non-issue insofar as his promotion to SMG Scale IV is

concerned. As noted above, the educational qualifications referred to by the

appellant  pertain  to  the  entry  level  post  of  Hindi  Officer  Scale  I.  The

appellant  was promoted as Hindi  Officer Class I in 1976 and respondent

No.5 came to join that post in 1978.  Later on both of them were promoted

to scales II and III and it was after about 20 years of entry into service that

both of them came up for consideration for promotion to SMG Scale IV.

Even while the selection process was going on the appellant did not raise

this objection before the Bank management.  The objection was taken for

the first time before the High Court and at that stage too it was not made

clear that the educational qualifications were not relevant for the promotion

in question but that pertained only to the entry level post.  At this stage,

5

therefore,  we  are  completely  disinclined  to  go  into  the  question  of  the

educational qualification of respondent No.5, more so since it is not at all

conclusive or clear that respondent No.5 did not have English as one of the

elective subjects at the Graduation level.   

8. This takes us to consider the second objection raised on behalf of the

appellant with regard to being given ‘Good’ as his Performance Appraisal

Ratings for the years 1995-96 and 1996-97. It is stated by the appellant that

on the retirement of Mr. R. V. Tiwari,  Assistant General Manager (Hindi

Department) on 1 February 1993, he was asked to take over as Head of the

Hindi Department on officiating basis; at that time he was in MMG Scale

III. In that position, from 1 June 1993 he was asked to report directly to the

General Manager. On the retirement of Mr. Arjun Bhaya, General Manager,

Hindi Cell, one Mr. S.C. Unhelkar, Chief Manager (System and Procedure)

from the main stream of the Bank was posted as Chief Manager, Rajbhasha

on 1 April, 1996. The appellant objected to the posting of Mr. Unhelkar as

he was from the main stream and his posting in Rajbhasha was in violation

of the Government guidelines.  Similar objections were also raised by the

Central  Bank Officers’  Association.   It  is  further  stated  on behalf  of  the

appellant that for the years 1995-96 and 1996-97 his Performance Appraisal

Ratings were given by Mr. Unhelkar and he gave him the rating ‘Good’ for

6

those two years. In fairness to the appellant it must be noted that he does not

allege any mala fide on the part of Mr. Unhelkar but Mr. Srivastava argued

that the appellant’s performance appraisal for the two years in question by

Mr.  Unhelkar  was  in  breach  of  the  guidelines  provided  under  the

Performance Appraisal System of Officers of the Central Bank of India.   

9. From the guidelines it appears that appraisals are to be made annually

on calendar year basis, i.e., for the period from January to December. It is a

two tier process in which the officer concerned makes his own appraisal and

submits  it  to his  Reporting Officer.  The remarks  given by the Reporting

Officer  are  finally  reviewed  by  the  Reviewing  Officer.  Clause  3  of  the

Guidelines provides that in case the concerned officer does not submit his

self-appraisal  within  one  month  of  receiving  the  format,  the  Reporting

Authority would have the right to submit his report concerning the officer to

the  Reviewing  Authority.  Clause  6  of  the  Guidelines  provides  that  if  a

Reporting/Reviewing Authority is to retire on a specified date, care should

be  taken  to  ensure,  as  far  as  practicable,  that  appraisals  of  the  officers

working  under  him are  taken  before  his  retirement.   Much  reliance  was

placed  on  behalf  of  the  appellant  on  Clause  4  of  the  Guidelines  that

provides as follows:

“It  should  be ensured that  the  Appraisee  has  worked under both Reporting and Reviewing Authority for a

7

minimum period of six months before he is appraised by them.  If it is not so, the appraisal form of the officer concerned  should  be  sent  to  the  previous Reporting/Reviewing  Authority  under  whom  he  has worked for six months or more.”

            (emphasis added)

10. Mr. Srivastava submitted that in both the calendar years 1995-96 and

1996-97 the  appellant  had  worked under  Mr.  Unhelkar  for  less  than  six

months and hence, he was not competent or authorised to give any appraisal

ratings to the appellant. The appellant had worked under Mr. Unhelkar from

9 September, 1996 to 9 March, 1997; in other words in the year 1996 he

worked under Mr.  Unhelkar  for about four  months and in 1997 for only

three  months.  Mr.  Srivastava  also  placed  before  us  the  appellant’s

performance appraisals during his service tenure.  It appears that right from

1984  to  1994  his  ratings  were  ‘Excellent’.  In  1995 he  was given  ‘Very

Good’.  In  1996  the  Reporting  Authority  gave  him  ‘Good’  and  the

Reviewing  Authority  ‘Very  Good’  but  the  overall  rating  came down  to

‘Good’.  In 1997 both the Reporting and Reviewing Authorities gave him

‘Good’. In 1998 the rating once again picked up to ‘Very Good’.  

11. The position in this regard is clarified in the counter affidavit filed by

the Bank. In the Bank’s counter affidavit it is stated that in the year 1994-

95, the appellant duly submitted his self-appraisal before Mr. Bhaya who

8

was the General Manager at that time. But in 1995-96, the appellant did not

submit his  self-appraisal  in  time and though in terms of  Clause  3 of the

Guidelines  Mr.  Bhaya  could  give  his  appraisal  rating  concerning  the

appellant he did not do so till  his retirement. The appellant submitted his

self-appraisal  for  two  years  1995-96  and  1996-97  after  Mr.Bhaya  had

already retired from service and thus it fell upon Mr. Unhelkar to write the

appellant’s Performance Appraisal Ratings for the two years. It is true that

in the year 1996 Mr. Unhelkar was the appellant’s Reporting Officer for less

than six months but in the circumstances, for which the appellant himself

was responsible to a great extent, his work appraisal could only be made by

Mr. Unhelkar. It is further pointed out that in both years 1995-96 and 1996-

97 Mr. Tiwary was the Reviewing Authority under whom the appellant had

worked  for  a  very  long  period  and  against  whom he  did  not  have  any

objection.   

12. Mr. L.N. Rao, senior counsel appearing for the Bank, submitted that

though in the year 1996 Mr. Unhelkar was the appellant’s Reporting Officer

for less than six months, by the time the appraisal rating for the year 1997

was written the appellant had already worked under him for more than six

months. The Performance Appraisal Rating of the appellant given for the

year 1996-97 was thus beyond any objection. He further submitted that even

9

if the Performance Appraisal Rating for the year 1995-96 is excluded for

both the candidates the position would still remain the same as the appellant

would have only a ‘Good’ remark as against the ‘Very Good’ remark for

respondent No.5 for the year 1996-97.

13. On  a  careful  consideration  of  the  rival  contentions  we  find  no

substance or merit in the appellant’s objections regarding his Performance

Appraisal Ratings for the three years in question.  

14. Mr.  Srivastava  then  submitted  that  in  the  preceding  years  the

appellant had ‘Excellent’ ratings and in the year 1995 he had ‘Very Good’.

The rating ‘Good’ for the year 1996-97 was thus a climb down and it was

incumbent upon the authorities to intimate the appellant about his ratings

for the two years in question. Since no intimation was given to the appellant

the ratings for those two years should not have been taken into account and

instead the ratings for the earlier years should have been considered for the

purpose of promotion.  

 15. We are unable to accept the submission. In Satya Narain Shukla vs.

Union of India & Ors., 2006 (9) SCC 69 (81) it was held and observed as

follows :

“The appellant also argued that the remarks made in the ACR were not communicated to him.  It was also urged by  the  appellant  that  this  Court  should  direct  the authorities  to  streamline  the  whole  procedure  so  that even remarks like “good” or “very good” made in ACRs

10

should  be  made  compulsorily  communicable  to  the officers  concerned  so  that  an  officer  may not  lose  his chance  of  empanelment  at  a  subsequent  point  of  his service.  In our view, it is not our function to issue such directions.  It is for the Government to consider how to streamline  the  procedure  for  selection.   We  can  only examine if the procedure for selection as adopted by the Government  in  unconstitutional  or  otherwise  illegal  or vitiated by arbitrariness and mala fides.”      

16. On hearing counsel for the parties and on a careful consideration of

the  materials  placed  on  record  we find  no  merit  in  the  appeal  and  it  is

accordingly dismissed.  In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall

be no order as to costs.

………………………………J.

[Tarun Chatterjee]

………………………………J.

[Aftab Alam]  

New Delhi,

September  16, 2008.         

11

12