http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: S.P. BISWAS AND OTHERS ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT27/08/1991

BENCH: VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) BENCH: VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) SHARMA, L.M. (J)

CITATION:  1991 AIR 2039            1991 SCR  (3) 769  1991 SCC  Supl.  (2) 354 JT 1991 (6)   100  1991 SCALE  (2)408

ACT:     Civil  Service--Promotion to Middle Management Grade  II of  State Bank of India-Promotion Policy dated 31. 10.  1983 read     with    Circular    dated     13.9.1989---Procedure mentioned--Whether arbitrary.     Bank--Service--Promotion  to Middle Management Grade  II of State Bank of India----Promotion policy--Whether discrim- inatory.

HEADNOTE:     The  appellants being aggrieved by the promotion  policy of the respondent-Bank dated 31.10.1983 read with the Circu- lar  dated 13.9.1989 for promotion from the cadre of  Junior Management Grade-1 to Middle Management Grade-II, moved  the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution.     The  policy  provides for two  channels  for  promotion, namely,  the  Merit Channel and the Seniority  Channel.  For filling  vacancies  by promotion from the  cadre  of  Junior Management  Grade-1 to that of Middle  Management  Grade-II, 65%  of the total vacancies were reserved for the  Seniority Channel and the remaining 35% for the Merit Channel.     The  criterion  mentioned in the policy  for  the  Merit Channel provides 40 per cent marks for written test, 10  per cent marks for seniority, 20 per cent marks for  performance appraisal, 20 per cent marks for interview and the remaining 10 per cent marks for passing the examina-’ tion held by the Bankers’ institute.     The  High  Courts  dismissed  the  writ   applications,. against which the appeals were filed in this Court.     TIle appellants contended that the marks under all other heads amounting to it maximum of 80 per cent instead of  the maximum  of  40  per cent prescribed for  the  written  test should  be  the  proper criterion to call  a  candidate  for interview  in order to make a proper selection on the  basis of  merit; that by taking into account the marks of  written test  alone there is exclusion of other  meritorious  candi- dates whose aggregate 770 including  the  marks  obtained under the  other  heads  may exceed  the corresponding aggregate of marks  of  candidates ’obtaining higher marks in written test alone. On this basis

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

the  policy for filling vacancies from the Merit Channel  by promotion was alleged to be arbitrary.      The  respondent-Bank, contended that the Provision  for the  Merit Channel for promotion was made in the  policy  to give  accelerated pro. motion to the academically  brilliant persons  with the object of providing incentive to them  and thereby  improving  the quality of personnel in  the  higher cadre;  that  the policy of deciding merit on the  basis  of written  test alone has been consistently followed  and  the Circular  dated 13.9.1989 was merely a clarification of  the manner of preparation of the Select List to make the  selec- tion  more objective and to yield better results by  getting the most meritorious candidates from all circles. Dismissing the appeals, this Court,      HELD:  1.  Keeping in view the laudable object  of  at- tracting  academically brilliant candidates into the  Bank’s service  as officers by direct recruitment by giving  incen- tive  of  accelerated  promotion  to  the  most  meritorious amongst them who maintain a high standard of achievement  is conducive to public interest and cannot be faulted. [773C]     2. Of the several heads under which the marks are divid- ed  for promotion to Merit Channel, written test and  inter- view are the only ones which depend on the current  perform- ance. The marks under the remaining three heads of  seniori- ty, performance appraisal and C.A.LLB. (passing of  examina- tion held by Bank’s Institute) relate to past performance of the candidate which are matters of record. It is, therefore, the appraisal of the current performance by written test and interview which alone is the real part for a proper apprais- al  of  the  current performance of the  candidate  for  the purpose  of  assessing his merit for promotion  through  the Merit  Channel. In this situation, if the marks obtained  in the written test alone are taken into account for  preparing the Select List to call candidates for an interview  depend- ing upon the number of vacancies available in Merit  Channel the criterion adopted cannot be termed arbitrary. [773C-F]     3.  The  marks obtained for seniority,  performance  ap- praisal and C.A.I.I.B. are based on service record and  not’ on  appraisal  of  the candidate by a  mode  independent  of service  record for assessing the true current worth of  the candidate. Since, equal opportunity is available to all  for competing through the Merit Channel, in addition to the 771 prospects through the Seniority Channel, the policy  adopted cannot  be  treated as irrational, discriminatory  or  arbi- trary. [773F.G]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL   APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal  No.  1774 of 1990.     From the Judgment and Order dated 14.2.1990 of the Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No. 13 of 1990. WITH CIVIL APPEAL No. 4457 of 1990. ,     D.V.  Sehgal, A.K. Goel, Mrs. Sheela Goel andK.K.  Mohan for the Appellants.     Shanti Bhushan, S.S. Sharma, R.P. Kapur and Sanjay Kapur for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by    VERMA, J. These appeals by special leave are disposed  of by this common judgment since they involve common questions. Civil  Appeal No.  1774 of 1990 is against the  judgment  of the  Delhi High Court while Civil: Appeal No. 4457  of  1990

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

arises  out  of a similar judgment Of the Punjab  &  Haryana High Court.  The appellants in. both these appeals are aggrieved by  the promotion policy of.the respondent, the State Bank of  India contained  in Annexure’ ’A’ ,dated’31.10.1983 read with  the Circular  dated13.9.1989  for promotion ’from the  cadre  of junior Management Grade-1 (Rs. 1175-2675):to Middle  Manage- ment  Grade-II (Rs. 1825-2925). The policy provides for  two channels  for promotion, namely, the Merit Channel  and  the Seniority  Channel. For filling vacancies by promotion  from the  cadre. of Junior Management Grade-1 to that  of  Middle Management  Grade-II, 65%. of the total Vacancies  were  re- served  for the Seniority Channel and the remaining 35%  for the Merit Channel. The challenge in these appeals is to  the filling  by  promotion of the vacancies  through  the  Merit Channel. The criterion mentioned in the policy for the Merit Channel provides 40 per cent marks for written test, 10  per cent marks for seniority, 20 per cent marks for  performance appraisal, 20 percent marks for interview and the remaining per  cent  marks  for passing the examination  held  by  the Bankers’ Institute called C.A.I.I.B. The procedure  adopted- for taking into account 772 the marks obtained in the written test alone for  shortlist- ing.or  screening instead of total of marks under all  heads except  interview  forcalling a candidate for  interview  is challenged  as  arbitrary. It is contended  that  the  marks under  another heads amounting to a maximum of 80  per  cent instead  of the maximum of 40 per. cent prescribed  for  the written test should be the proper criterion to call a candi- date for interview in order to make a proper selection I  on the basis of merit. It is urged on behalf .of the appellants that by taking intoa ccount the marks of written test  alone there  is  exclusion of other meritorious  candidates  whose aggregate including the marks obtaine dunder the other heads may  exceed the corresponding aggregate of marks  of  candi- dates obtaining higher marks in .written test alone. On this basis the policy for filling vacancies from the Merit  Chan- nel  by  promotion is alleged to be arbitrary. This  is  the common grievance in both these appeals. An additional  point urged in Civil Appeal No. 1774 of 1990 alone is that  unfair means  were adopted by some candidates at some centres in  a particular  circle where written tests were held  which  has vitiated the result of the written test.     On  behalf  of  the respondent-Bank,  all  the  relevant documents were produced to negative both these  submissions. It was urged by learned counsel for the respondent that  the provision  for the Merit Channel for promotion was  made  in the policy to give accelerated promotion to the academically brilliant persons with the object of providing incentive  to them  and thereby improving the quality of personnel in  the higher  cadre.  He pointed out that the policy  of  deciding merit  on the basis of written test alone has been  consist- ently followed and the Circular dated 13.9. 1989 was  merely a  clarification of the manner of preparation of the  Select List  to  make  the selection more objective  and  to  yield better  results by getting the most  meritorious  candidates from  all circles. This mode of preparation of  Select  List was adopted in 1989 also to overcome the deficiencies point- ed out in the earlier years. The object of choosing the most meritorious persons through this channel is better  achieved by  adopting  the  performance in the written  test  as  the predominent factor for selection on .the basis of merit. One of  the attendant benefits achieved thereby is also  to  at- tract  more brilliant people into the Banking  service  with

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

the prospects of accelerated promotion to the more meritori- ous  persofts.  The entry point for officers by  direct  re- cruitment  in the State Bank of India being the JUnior  Man- agement  Grade-1, the prospect of the very  first  promotion being  accelerated for academically brilliant. persons  pro- vides greater incentive to the brilliant persons joining the service.  This is the justification given for  adopting  the policy of reserving 35 per cent of 773 the  promotional vacancies to the next higher cadre  through Merit  Channel.  The object sought to be  achieved  in  this manner  and  the making of such a provision to  achieve  the object  of such a provision was rightly not assailed  before us.  The only. challenge was to the criterion of  marks  ob- tained in the written test alone being the guiding factor to choose candidates who were to be called for interview.     We  heard both sides at length and also closely  scruti- nised  the  Bank’s records relating to the  formulation  and implementation of the impugned promotion policy. Our conclu- sion  is that no infirmity rendering this  policy  arbitrary and,  there.fore,  assailable on that ground  is  disclosed. Keeping in view the laudable ’object of attracting  academi- cally brilliant candidates into the Bank’s service as  offi- cers by direct recruitment by giving incentive of accelerat- ed promotion to the most meritorious amongst them who  main- tain a, high standard of achievement is conducive to  public interest and cannot be faulted. Of the serveral heads  Under which the marks are divided for promotion to Merit  Channel, written test and interview are the only ones which depend on the current performance. The marks under the remaining three heads  of  seniority, performance appraisal  and  C.A.I.I.B. (passing of examination held by Bank’s Institute) relate  to past  performance  of  the candidate which  are  matters  of record.  It  is,  therefore, the appraisal  of  the  current performance by written test and interview which alone is the real part for a proper appraisal of the current  performance of the candidate for the purpose of assessing his merit  for promotion  through the Merit Channel. In this situation,  if the marks obtained in the written test alone are taken  into account for preparing the Select List to call candidates for an  interview depending upon the number of vacancies  avail- able  in  Merit  Channel, the criterion  adopted  cannot  be termed  arbitrary. As earlier indicated, the marks  obtained for  seniority,  performance appraisal ’and  C.A.I.I.B.  are based  on service record and not on appraisal of the  candi- date  by a mode independent of service record for  assessing the true current worth of the candidate. Since, equal oppor- tunity  is available to all for competing through the  Merit Channel, in addition to the prospects_through the  Seniority Channel, the policy adopted cannot be treated as irrational, discriminatory  or arbitrary. No doubt there is always  room for improvement and so also in the mode of implementation of this policy. The learned counsel for the respondents assured us.that  the Bank is vigilant and active in making  any  im- provement  which is called for as a result of experience  or suggestions  from any quarter. The Bank’s endeavour to  make the  assessment  of merit as objective as possible  is  also indicated by its efforts in that direction. The record of 774 the Bank placed before us does satisfy us about the genuine- ness  and bona fides of the Bank’s endeavour in this  direc- tion.  It  may  also be indicated  that-the  Circular  dated 13.9.1989  for  preparation  of the Select  List  which  was applied  to the examination held thereafter in 1989  was  an exercise  in  the same direction. We are inclined  to  agree

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

with this submission of the learned counsel for the respond- ents.  One of the arguments of the learned counsel  for  the appellants  that this circular was  applied  retrospectively was not substantiated by the facts since preparation of  the list  according to this circular in the examination held  in 1989  was made subsequent to the issuance of  this  circular and it was an exercise in improvement of the mode Of  selec- tion.     We  do not, therefore, find any merit in the  submission on  behalf of the appellants that the policy framed and  the mode  of its implementation for filling some of  the  promo- tional posts through the Merit Channel is discriminatory  or arbitrary. This contention is, therefore, rejected. We  may, however,  add that if there be any suggestion for a  further improvement in the mode of implementation of this policy the same  can be given to the management of the  respondent-Bank and we have no doubt, as assured by Shri Shanti Bhushan, the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank that the worth while suggestions, if any, would be adopted by the Bank for future examinations.     The  only other point which is confined to Civil  Appeal No.  1774 of 1990 is the allegation of unfair means  adopted at  some  centres where written test was held in  the  Delhi Circle.  We have scrutinised all the documents  including  a Report  dated  1.9.1989  of Mr. V.D. Bhog  on  which  strong reliance  was  placed on behalf of the  appellants.  We  are satisfied that no ground for any interference on this  basis is  made out. The relevant records disclosed that an  honest attempt  was made on the part of the management of the  Bank to  examine all the points raised in the Report of Mr.  V.D. Bhog  and otherwise and in cases where an element of use  of unfair  means  was found, necessary action  was  taken.  The Report  dated 7.12.1989 by the General Manager  (Operations) is relevant in this context and the materials placed  before us  show  that  necessary action was taken by  the  Bank  to exclude the possibility of the results being affected by use of  unfair  means by any candidate and this  was  done  even before  filing of the writ petition by the  appellants.  The ultimate  results  of the candidates at  these  centres  who appeared  for written test at these centres also assures  us that neither was there any mass copying at these centres nor is the final result shown to have been influenced by use  of unfair  means by any candidate. It is also disclosed by  the records that the complaint which led to the report by. 775 Shri  V.D, Bhog was made by twenty-seven candidates  out  of whom twenty-four had obtained high marks themselves and. out of  them twelve were actually selected by inclusion  in  the final  list of selected candidates. This  additional  ground urged  on behalf of the appellants in Civil Appeal No.  1774 of 1990 also cannot be accepted. Consequently; both these appeals fail and are dismissed. No costs. V.P.R.                                        Appeals   dis- missed. 776