http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: SYNDICATE BANK SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES EMPLOY-

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION  OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS ADDITIONAL SECRETARY,  MINISTRY

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/08/1990

BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) AGRAWAL, S.C. (J)

CITATION:  1990 SCR  (3) 713        1990 SCC  Supl.  350  JT 1990 (3)   468        1990 SCALE  (2)229

ACT:     Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14 and 16 --Sched- uled   Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes   Employees--Syndicate Bank--Group ‘A’ posts reservation for SC/ST Officers--Appli- cation  of roster system--Directions  by  Court--Reservation policy in respect of SC/ST applicable to such posts.

HEADNOTE:     The Syndicate Bank Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Employees  Associated  representing the interests  of  SC/ST employees throughout the country and three Assistant  Manag- ers of the Bank have filed this petition under article 32 of the  constitution of India. Their case is as  follows:  That Group ’A’ Officers posts are class I posts with  Grade Scale I to Grade Scale VII. Criteria for promotion from Grade I to the  next  Grade  and onwards is regulated  by  a  promotion policy dated 17.9.1985. Being a nationalised Bank all policy decisions are controlled and governed by rules framed by the Central Government from time to time. In order to  implement the  principles  enshrined in the Constitution  of  granting benefit of members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the  Government  has evolved the policy of  reservation  for them in the ratio of 5% and 7 1/2% respectively both at  the time of initial recruitment as well as at the time of promo- tions  in all government establishments. Though this  policy was  extended  to the Banking Industry in 1972  it  remained restricted to appointments by direct recruitment only. Later the  Central Govt. by its D.C. letter dated  31.12.1977  ad- dressed  to  all  the nationalised banks  required  them  to implement the reservation policy to promotional posts  also. But the respondent bank did not follow the policy within the Officers cadre on the mistaken impression that the  reserva- tion  in promotional cadres through selection is barred.  To this the petitioners submitted that the Home Ministry’s O.M. issued as early as on 26.3.1970 clearly provided 714 reservations for SC & ST Officers’ promotion within class  I posts including officers drawing a basic pay of Rs.2,000 per month  or  less.  This  was later  followed  by  O.M.  dated 23.12.1974 issued by the department of Personnel and  Admin- istrative  Reforms to all the Ministries on the same  lines. However  the  Ministry of Finance,  Department  of  Economic

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

affairs (Banking Division) issued a circular dated 30.5.1981 to  all the nationalised banks that there is no  reservation for  Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in ’Promotion  by Selection’  within the officers cadre; that the  concessions to SC & ST employees mentioned in Home Ministry’s O.M. dated 26.3.1970  would  be  available to them in  ’  Promotion  by Selection’ to posts within the officers cadre upto scale III only  and all the banks were required to implement  instruc- tions contained in Home Ministry’s O.Ms. dated 26.3.1970 and 23.12.1974  with such modifications as may be  necessary  in the  light of the circular dated 30.5.1981. The  petitioners have  contended  that  the Central  Government  wrongly  and erroneously  interpreted these circulars in taking the  view that  there  was  no reservation in  the  promotional  posts within the officers cadre. Finally they say that despite the unequivocal directions from the Govt. of India, Ministry  of Finance contained in its letter dated 28.11.1986 to all  the nationalised  banks  clarifying the position  in  regard  to reservations  for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes  for promotions  and  the decision of this Court in  Bihar  State Harijan  Kalyan  Parishad v. Union of India  &  Ors.,  which applied  in  all force to the case of the  petitioners,  the Respondent  Bank  failed  to make  reservations  within  the officers cadre and continues to follow the selection  method of promotion which has lead to the filing of this  Petition. Allowing the Writ Petition, this Court,     HELD:  Even  though  the promotion posts  are  based  on selection  method,  the rule of reservation will  supply  to posts within group ’A’ and the benefit of reservation policy to members of SC and ST cannot be denied on the ground  that promotional  posts are to be filled by method of  selection. Government of India committed a clear mistake in not  apply- ing  the  principle already decided in Bihar  State  Harijan Kalyan  Parishad’s  case to the Syndicate Bank  and  in  not giving it a clear direction this regard. [725G-H; 726A]     There  can be no manner of doubt that the management  of the  Syndicate Bank was not at fault as they were  bound  by the  instructions and policy laid down by the government  of India  and  in  the absence of a clear  direction  from  the Government  it was not possible for them to grant relief  to the SC/ST employees of the bank. [726B] 715     Though  Group ’A’ posts were selection posts  still  the reservation  policy  is  applicable to such  posts  and  the respondents are directed to compute the backlog of  unfilled reserved quota available to SC/ST officers in the promotion- al posts with effect from 1.1.1978, the date of introduction of  reservation policy in the respondent bank. The  respond- ents  are further directed to grant promotion to  the  SC/ST employees  of  the  Syndicate Bank  with  all  consequential benefits of salary and allowances from the respective  dates they  should have been promoted, after applying  the  roster system in their favour. [726D-E]     Bihar State Harijan Kalval Parishad v. Union of India  & Ors.. [1985] 2 SCC 644, followed.

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 847 of 1987. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).     Rajinder  Sachar, K.R. Nagaraja, P.K. Rao,  R.S.  Hegde, V.A. Babu and R. Rajappa for the Petitioners.     K.N. Bhat, Vijay K. Verma and Ms. Madhu Moolchandani for the Respondents.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     KASLIWAL,  J.  This  Petition under Article  32  of  the Constitution  of India has been filed by the Syndicate  Bank Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Employees  Association representing the interest of Scheduled Castes and  Scheduled Tribes  Employees  of the Syndicate Bank all over  India  as well  as by three other Assistant Managers of the  Syndicate Bank.  The case as set up in the petition is that Group  ’A’ Officers  posts  which are Class I posts  contain  different grades  called Junior Management Grade Scale I, Middle  Man- agement  Grade Scale II, Middle Management Grade  Scale  III and like this upto Grade Scale VII. The criteria for  promo- tions from Junior Management Grade Scale I to Middle Manage- ment Grade Scale II and so on is based on a promotion policy dated 17.9.1985 flamed in this regard by the Bank. According to the petitioners the Syndicate Bank is a Nationalised Bank owned  and  controlled by the Central  Government.  All  the policy  decisions  and  major  internal  administration  are regulated  and  governed by and under Rules  issued  by  the Central Government from time to time. In order to  implement the principles enshrined in the Constitution of India grant- ing benefit to members belonging to Scheduled 716 Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the Central Government  evolved the  concept of quota system in the ratio of 15% and  7-1/2% reservation  for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled  Tribes  re- spectively both at the time of recruitment as well as at the time of promotions in all Government organisations.     It  has been further alleged by the Petitioners that  14 leading  banks of the country were nationalised in the  year 1969  and  the Government ought to have  extended  the  said policy  of  reservation in the banking  sector  also  w.e.f. 1969.  However, the reservation policy was extended  to  the banking  industry initially in the year 1972, but  that  re- mained restricted in respect of appointments made by  direct recruitment only. Later on by a D.O. Letter No. 10/24/74-SCT (B) dated 31.12.1977 the Central Government called upon  the banks  to implement the reservation policy in the matter  of promotions  posts also. In the matter of  promotions  within the Officers cadre, the respondent bank did not maintain any roster  and  did  not follow the reservation  policy  on  an erroneous  impression  that the reservation  in  promotional cadres  made through selection method is barred.  The  peti- tioners  in  this regard have submitted that by  an  Officer Memorandum  issued by the Home Ministry as long back  as  on 26.3.1970 clearly provided reservations for Scheduled Castes and  Scheduled  Tribes Officers for their  promotion  within Class I posts and also in cases of Officers who drew a basic pay  of Rs.2,000 per month or less. Subsequently  Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms also issued an  O.M. No. 1/10/ 74-Esstt (SCT) dated 23.12.1974 to all  Ministries on.  the same lines as contained in the earlier O.M.  issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 26th March, 1970.  The Government  of  India, Ministry of  Finance,  Department  of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) issued a Circular  dated 30th  May, 1981 addressed to all the 26  Nationalised  Banks existing  at  that  time in the matter  of  reservation  for Scheduled  Castes and Scheduled Tribes in respect of  promo- tion.  In the aforesaid letter after making a  reference  to the  Department’s  letter D.O. No.  10/24/75-SCT  (B)  dated 31.12.1977  Ministry of Home Affairs O.M.  No.  1/9/69-Esstt (SCT) dated 26.3.1970 and Department of Personnel and Admin- istrative   Reforms  O.M.  No.  1/10/74-Esstt  (SCT)   dated 23.12.74  it  was stated that as per  the  above  Government orders  there  is no reservation for  Scheduled  Castes  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

Scheduled  Tribes  in ’Promotion by  Selection’  within  the Officers cadre. It was further stated in the above  circular that  certain concessions and facilities are to be  provided to  the  Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes  Officers  in order  to improve their chances for selection to the  Higher categories of posts in the Officers cadre in accordance with the orders contained in the 717 aforesaid  O.Ms of Ministry of Home Affairs. It was  further stated  that it has been decided that the  concessions  men- tioned in Para 2 of Home Ministry’s Office Memorandum  dated 26.3.1970 would be available to the SC/ST Officers in Public sector Bank/Financial Institutions in ’Promotions by  Selec- tions’  to posts within the Officers cadre upto  Scale  III. All  the  banks were requested to implement  the  Government instructions contained in the Officer Memorandums of  Minis- try of Home Affairs and Department of Personnel and Adminis- trative Reforms dated 26.3.1970 and 23.12.1974  respectively in  the existing scheme of promotions with  such  procedural modifications as may be necessary.     The case of the petitioners further is that the  Central Government  wrongly  and erroneously interpreted  the  above circulars and in taking the view that there was no  reserva- tion in the promotional posts within the officers cadre.  In identical circumstances the Ministry of Steel and Mines in a letter dated April 8, 1982 addressed to the Chairman of  the Steel Authority of India Limited and letter dated August 19, 1982 from the Steel Authority of India to the Chief  Person- nel Manager Bokaro Steel Plant took the view that the Sched- uled Castes and Scheduled Tribes personnel were not entitled to the benefit of reservation in the matter of promotion  of selection  posts within Group ’A’. The Bihar  State  Harijan Kalyan  Parishad  came before this Court  by  special  leave challenging  the above view taken by the Steel Authority  of India  and  the Union of India. This court  in  Bihar  State Harijan  Kalyan Parishad v. Union of India & Ors., [1985]  2 SCC 644 granted special leave. This Court held in the  above case that a close perusal of the directive and in particular paragraph 9 which dealt with the concessions to employees of Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled Tribes  in  promotions  by selection method makes it abundantly clear that the rule  of reservation is also applicable to promotions by selection to posts  within  Group ’A’ which carry an ultimate  salary  of Rs.2250  per  month or less but the  procedure  is  slightly different than the case of other posts. It was further  held in the above case that while the rule of reservation applies to promotions by selection to posts within group ’A’  carry- ing a salary of Rs.2250 per month or less, it is  prescribed that  only those officers belonging to the Scheduled  Castes and  Scheduled Tribes will be considered for  promotion  who are senior be within the zone of consideration. Thereafter a Select List depending upon the number of vacancies would  be drawn up in which also those officers belonging to Scheduled Castes  and Scheduled Tribes would be included who  are  not considered unfit for promotion. Their position in the Select List would be that assigned to them by the 718 departmental Promotion Committee on the basis of the  record of  service.  In other words their inclusion in  the  Select List  would  not give them seniority, merely  by  virtue  of their belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes over  other  officer’s placed above them in he  Select  List made  by  Departmental Promotion Committee.  The  court  bus quashed the List dated April 8, 1982 and August 19, 1982 and directed  the respondents to give effect to paragraph  9  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

the Presidential directive w.e.f. the date of the directive. Subsequently  a Miscellaneous Petition No. 3637/86 was  also filed in view of a misunderstanding of the above Judgment by the Authorities. The Court by order dated 21st January, 1987 deciding  the  above  miscellaneous petition  and  made  the following observations: "We wish to clarify the position by stating that the  Sched- uled Castes/Scheduled Tribes Officers who are senior  enough to  be within zone of consideration for promotion should  be included in the Select List against the vacancies  available to-the members of Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes accord- ing  to the rosters, provided they are not considered  unfit for  promotion.  Paragraph 2 of the  Presidential  Directive should  be strictly adhered to and effect shall be given  on the  basis of scales of pay that obtained prior to  1975  as mentioned  in  that paragraph. The officers  promoted  as  a consequence of our order will be entitled to be paid  salary and  allowances from the respective dates with  effect  from which they should have been promoted."     After  the  above decision of the  Supreme  Court  which applied in all force to the case of the present petitioners, a  meeting took place between the representatives of  Syndi- cate Bank SC/ST employees Association and the Management  of Syndicate  Bank on 16th and 17th April, 1986. In the  afore- said  meeting  the representatives of  the  management  were fully convinced with the stand taken by the  representatives of Syndicate Bank SC and ST employees Association and  after agreeing  in principle, they assured to take up  the  matter very  strongly again with the Government of India,  Ministry of Finance (Banking Division) for their approval. The  peti- tioners  thereafter made frantic efforts and also  submitted representations  but no relief was granted to the  petition- ers. It may be mentioned that Minister of State for Finance, Government  of India in his letter dated November  22,  1986 addressed  to  Shri Banwarilal Bairva Member  of  Parliament clearly  admitted as regards the reservation for  SC/ST  em- ployees  in Indian Overseas Bank that he had checked up  his reply to the Lok Sabha 719 starred  question No. 342 answered on 5th August.  1986  and had"’  got  further  clarifications from the  bank  of   the subject.  It was further stated in the above letter as  fol- lows: "In respect of promotions. the bank was maintaining  rosters for  only such category of posts to which  the  reservations were being applied by the bank. Since as per the Brochure on reservations for SCs/STs are available in promotions  within the officers cadre only if they are based on seniority,  and the bank considered the method of promotions followed by  it as  one based on selection. it did not consider  maintenance of  rosters  necessary.  During the  course  of  discussions between  the officials of the bank and Banking Division,  it was  revealed  that the procedure followed by the  bank  for effecting  promotions within the officers cadre was the  one falling within the categorisation of seniority. The bank was immediately  advised  to  maintain rosters  even  for  these promotions  within  the Officers cadre and  to  provide  for reservations  for  the SCs/STs. The bank  has  accepted  its mistake  and has already agreed to provide for  reservations and also to calculate the backlog from 1978 when the  reser- vations in promotions were first introduced in the banks."     It  may be also mentioned that the Government of  India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division)  vide  letter No. F. No.  10/72/86-SCT  (B)  dated 28.11.1986  addressed  to all the  nationalised  banks  also

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

clarified  the position in regard to reservations for  SC/ST in promotions as under: "It  may  be recalled that instructions were issued  by  the Government on 3.5.1980 advising bank to apply the provisions of  carry forward interchange, and lapsing of  vacancies  in promotions  also  because  of certain  factors  even  though strictly  speaking  these provisions are not  applicable  to promotions  by selection. In doing so, the posts  filled  by selection  method  were specifically  categorised  as  those where promotions are made on the basis of a written examina- tion followed by interview and/or on the basis of the inter- view.  On the other hand promotions based on the  assessment of the confidential reports of the officers were  classified as  those based on seniority, subject to fitness. The  banks are, therefore, requested to review the method 720 of promotions followed by them and ensure that wherever  the rosters  are to be maintained for determining the number  of vacancies reserved for SC/ST. This is done scrupulously. The results of the review may be intimated to the Government  by 15th  December, 1986. While intimating the information,  the methodology  adopted for effecting promotions  from  various cadres/scales should be specifically intimated".     The  grievances of the petitioners is that  despite  the aforesaid  unequivocal directions from the  Government,  the bank   failed  to  make  reservations  for   the   Scheduled Castes/Scheduled  Tribes  employees.  The  petitioners  made representations  to the respondents in this regard in  which it  was reiterated that after decision of the Supreme  Court in  Bihar State Harijan Kalvan Parishad v. Union Of India  & Ors., (supra) and further order of clarification dated  21st January,  1987,  the petitioners were entitled to  the  same treatment.  However the grievances of the  petitioners  were not  redressed  and a view was taken by authorities  of  the respondent/bank that there was no direction for the  Govern- ment  of India for prescribing reservation policy for  offi- cers cadre and that they were following the selection method or promotion in the case of Officers posts. The Union of India flied a counter affidavit contesting  the stand  taken by the petitioners. So far as the bank is  con- cerned  they did not any separate reply in detail  but  took the  stand that the Syndicate banks was a Nationalised  bank and  was under the Administrative control of the  Government of India, Banking Division as such the bank is guided in the discharge  of its functions by any directions issued  by  B- anking  Division, Ministry of Finance, Government  of  India from  one  to time. Reference was made to  Regulation  17(1) according  to which promotions to all grades of officers  in the  Bank  were required to be made in accordance  with  the policy laid down by the Board from to time having regard  to the  guidelines of the Government, if any. in view of  these circumstances  it was stated in the counter  affidavit  that they fully adopt all the submissions of fact and law made by the Government of India in its counter affidavit. We  have heard Mr. R. Sachar, Learned counsel for the  peti- tioner. K.N. Bhat, for the Syndicate Bank and Mr. R.  Rajap- pa,  for the Union of India. It may be stated at the  outset that  though  the   union of India in its  reply  had  taken several grounds for contesting the petition, but the Learned Counsel appearing for the Union of 721 India  conceded before us and made a statement that  he  was not  pressing  the grounds taken in  the  counter  affidavit filed  by  the Union of India and they would  abide  by  any directions  given by this Hon’ble Court. Mr. Bhat  appearing

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

on behalf of the Bank also submitted that the Bank was bound by the decisions taken by the Government of India,  Ministry of Finance Banking Division and the Bank was not at fault in not  granting  relief to the petitioners in as much  as  the Government of India was not clear in its policy of  reserva- tion.  The  attitude of the Government of India  is  clearly discernible from its counter affidavit filed in the  present case. It was thus prayed that this Hon’ble Court should  not hold  the Bank responsible for not granting  an  appropriate relief  to the petitioners at its own end and  for  dragging the petitioners unnecessarily in this litigation.     Mr.  Sachar  contended that the Ministry  of  State  for Finance,  Government of India in his letter  dated  November 22,  1986  addressed to Shri Banwari Lal  Bairva  Member  of Parliament  made it clear that during the course of  discus- sions between the officials of the bank and banking division regarding  reservations  for SC ST employees of  the  Indian Overseas  Bank, it was revealed that the procedure  followed by  the bank for effecting promotions, within  the  officers cadre  was  the  one falling within  the  categorisation  of seniority.  The  bank was immediately  advised  to  maintain rosters even for these promotions within the officers  cadre and  to  provide for reservations for the SCs  STs.  It  was further mentioned in the above letter that the bank accepted its  mistake and had already agreed to provide for  reserva- tions  and also to calculate the backlog from 1978 when  the reservations  in  promotions were first  introduced  in  the banks.  In another letter issued by the Banking division  of the  Ministry  of Finance dated 28.11:86  addressed  to  the Chairmen and Managing Directors of 20 nationalised banks  it was mentioned as under: "It  may  be recalled that instructions were issued  by  the Government on 3.5.80 advising banks to apply the  provisions of  carry forward, interchange, and lapsing of vacancies  in promotions  also  because  of certain  factors  even  though strictly  speaking  these provisions are not  applicable  to promotions  by selection. In doing so, the posts filled  ’by selection  method  were specifically  categorised  as  those where promotions are made on the basis of a written examina- tion followed by interview and/or on the basis of the inter- view. On the other hand promotions based on the 722 assessment of the confidential reports of the officers  were classified as those based on seniority subject to fitness."     The  banks  were,  therefore, requested  to  review  the method of promotions followed by them and ensure that  wher- ever  the rosters are to be maintained for  determining  the number of vacancies reserved for SC/ST, this be done scrupu- lously.  Mr.  Sachar  brought to our  notice  the  promotion policy  in respect of officers of the Syndicate Bank  issued on  17.9.85 annexed with the writ petition as Annexure-L  at point number 3 follows: 3.  "The  Promotion  Policy identifies  the  following  four factors  as  relevant for ascertaining  the  suitability  of officers for promotion from one scale to another: (a) Seniority for promotions upto SMGS IV (b) Educational and Professional Qualifications for movement to Middle Management Grade Scale II only. (c) Performance in the grade/scale. (d) Potential as identified in the interview for movement to Middle Management Grade Scale III and above".     It  was  thus submitted that from a reading of  the  two letters dated 22.11.86 and 28.11.86 together with the promo- tion  policy issued by the Syndicate Bank it was clear  that for  promotions  from one scale to another upto SMG  IV  was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

based  on seniority and the Syndicate Bank as such ought  to have  made  promotions  upto SMGS IV by  giving  benefit  of reservation to SC/STs in the employment of the bank.     It was also contended by Mr. Sachar that upto 1979,  the Syndicate Bank made promotions of officers from one scale to another  purely  on the basis of  officers  completing  five years  of service as on 31st December of previous  year.  No promotions were made in 1979, 1980 and 1981. Since 1982  the promotions within the officers cadre were being made on  the basis of the following policy:     The  minimum  eligibility service and  factor  weightage shall be as follows: 723 Movement  Minimum      Points   Points    Maximum Maximum from      eligibility  for      the       points   points           service as   senio-   educa-    for      for           on 31st      rity     tional    perfor-  potential           December              & Profe-  mance    as iden-           of Previous           ssional   in the   fied in           Year                  qualifi-  scale    the inter                                 cation             view JMGS to    7 years in   60        10        30       Nil MMGS II    JMGS I MMGS II   5 years in    50         -        30       20 to MMGS   MMGS II III MMGS III  5 years in    20         -        50       30 to SMGS   MMGS III IV SMGS IV   3 years in     -         60       40 to TEGS V  SMGS IV SMGS V to  2 years in    -         -        60       40 TEGS VI   SMGS V TEGS VI to 3 years in    -         -        60       40 TEGS VII  TEGS VI     It was contended that from the above policy, it would be clear  that  there  was no written test  and  interview  for promotions  from Gr. I to Gr. II and that 60% of  the  marks had been fixed for seniority. The above policy further makes it  clear  that the seniority was considered  a  predominant factor.  The  Government of India in its  office  memorandum dated 27.11.72 had provided for reservation of 15% and 71/2% for SC and ST candidates respectively, and the Government of India  Banking  Division, had made  the  reservation  policy applicable  in the case of promotional posts also  vide  its D.O. Letter No. 10/24/74-SCT (B) dated 31.12.77. Thus, there remains  no ambiguity and the respondent bank ought to  have given  benefit of reservation policy from 1st January,  1978 to the members of SCs/STs in the cadre of officers. Mr. 724 Sachar also submitted that as already mentioned above in the matter of employees of the Indian Overseas Bank rosters  for calculating the vacancies reserved for the SCs/STs had  been applied in the case of promotions within the officers cadre. It was further argued that the principle of contemporanea ex position i.e. interpreting the statute or any other document by reference to the exposition it has received from  contem- porary authority, has to be applied in case of employees  of the  Syndicate Bank also while effecting  promotions  within the officers cadre. Reliance in support of the above conten- tion  is placed on Desh Bandhu Gupta & Company &  Others  v. Delhi Stock Exchange Assn. Ltd., [1979] 3 SCR 373.     We find no force in the above contention of Mr.  Sachat. A perusal of the promotion policy goes to show that for  the purpose of promotions in the cader of officers from JMGS  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

MMGS  II  and from MMGS II to MMGS III and then  upto  scale VII, is not based on seniority alone. Apart from the  points for seniority other factors based on selective process  were also  important  and  as such it cannot be  held  that  such promotions in the higher scale were based solely on seniori- ty.  A  perusal of the criteria laid down in  the  promotion policy  already  extracted above clearly goes to  show  that apart from points for seniority, points for educational  and professional  qualification, points for performance  in  the scale  and points for potential as identified in the  inter- view  have also to be assessed while making  appointment  by promotion. Merely because in the case of promotion from JMGS to  MMGS II points for seniority being mentioned as  60,  it cannot  be said that such promotion in scale II may be  con- sidered as promotion otherwise than by the method of  selec- tion. In our view unless the promotion is based on seniority alone  and other factors based on merit such as  educational and  professional qualifications, performance in the  scale, written examination or interview have no material bearing it cannot  be considered as a promotion based on  seniority.  A perusal  of the policy shows that it is a hybrid  system  of promotion  in which upon scale IV points are given for  sen- iority as well as for other factors also which are based  on a  sort of selection process depending upon the  educational qualifications,  performance  in the  scale  and  interview. While  in the case of promotion from scale IV to  scale  VII there are no points given for seniority at all. Thus  taking in view the entire scheme of promotion policy, we think that promotions  in the officers cadre from JMGS I to  Scale  VII shall be considered as promotions on selection basis. Howev- er  the  rule of reservation for SCs/STs will apply  to  ap- pointments made by promotion on selection basis, subject  to a procedure somewhat different from usual procedure  adopted in filling up 725 posts reserved for SCs and STs on selection basis alone  for appointments to be made by direct recruitment.     Mr. Sachar then submitted that in case the above  policy of  promotion  is not considered as based on  seniority,  or otherwise  than  by  selection, the petitioners  are  to  be governed by the principles already laid down in Bihar  State Harijan  Kalyan Parishad v. Union of India & Ors.,  (supra). It  was contended that in identical case though relating  to employees  of  Steel  Authority of India  Ltd.,  this  Court interpreted paragraph 9 of the Presidential directive in the case of promotions within group ’A’ which provided as under: "In promotions by selection to posts within Group ’A’  which carry an ultimate salary of Rs.2250 per month, or less,  the Scheduled  Caste/Scheduled  Tribe officers, who  are  senior enough  in the zone of consideration for promotion so as  to be within the number of vacancies for which the Select  List has to be drawn up, would be included in that list  provided they are not considered unfit for promotion. Their  position in the select list would, however be the same as assigned to them by the Departmental Promotion Committee on the basis of their  record of service. They would not be given, for  this purpose  one grading higher than the grading  otherwise  as- signable to them on the basis of their record of service".     It  was held in the above case that a close  perusal  of the directive and in particular paragraph 9 which deals with "concessions  to employees of SC/ST in promotions by  selec- tion  methods" ’makes it abundantly clear that the  rule  of reservation is also applicable to promotion by selection  to posts  within  group  ’A’ which  carry  ultimate  salary  of Rs.2250 per month or less but that the procedure is slightly

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

different than in the case of other posts.     We find force in this alternative submission made by Mr. Sachat.  Even  though  the promotional posts  are  based  on selection  method,  the rule of reservation  will  apply  to posts within group ’A’ and the benefit of reservation policy to members of SC and ST cannot be denied on the ground  that promotional  posts are to be filled by method of  selection. We  find  no  distinction in the case of  employees  in  the officers  group  in  JMGS I of the Bank  from  the  officers falling  in  group ’A’ under the Steel  Authority  of  India Ltd.,  for the purpose of applying reservation policy.  Gov- ernment of India committed a clear mistake in 726 not  applying the principle already decided in  Bihar  State Harijan  Kalyan Parishad’s case (supra) to the employees  of the  Syndicate Bank and in not giving a clear  direction  in this  regard to the management of Syndicate Bank. There  can be  no manner of doubt that the management of the  Syndicate Bank was not at fault as they were bound by the instructions and policy laid down by the Banking division of the  Finance Ministry of the Government of India and in the absence of  a clear  direction  from the Government of India, it  was  not possible for them to grant relief to the SC/ST employees  of the bank. As already mentioned above the Union of India  had wrongly  taken a contrary stand in its counter filed to  the present petition, and clearly in derogation to the principle already  decided in the case of Bihar State  Harijan  Kalyan Parishad, (supra) by this Court.     In  the result this petition is allowed. The  orders  of the  respondents dated 15th June, 1987 and 25th  June,  1987 are  declared as illegal. It is further decided that  though group  ’A’ posts are selection posts still  the  reservation policy  is applicable to such posts and the respondents  are directed  to compute the backlog of untilled reserved  quota available  to  the SC/ST officers in the  promotional  posts with  effect  from 1.1. 1978, the date  of  introduction  of reservation  policy in the respondent bank. The  respondents are further directed to grant promotion to the SC/ST employ- ees of the Syndicate Bank with all consequential benefits of salary and allowances from the respective dates w.e.f. which they  should have been promoted, after applying  the  roster system in their favour. We grant three months’ time to carry out these directions.     The-petitioners would be entitled to costs to be paid by the respondent Union of India. R.N.J.                                              Petition allowed. 727