Writ petition challenging rejection of bank employee’s promotion appeal due to failure to meet minimum merit marks under seniority-cum-merit policy, though junior was promoted holding seat.
Writ petition deemed devoid of merits and dismissed; pending interim applications disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.35881 OF 2012 (S-PRO)
BETWEEN:
J.K.SURESH S/O J.C.KALLATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS WORKING MANAGER CHIKMAGALUR – KODAGU GRAMEENA BANK BIRUR – 577 116 CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NAGENDRA NAIK R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.SACHINDRA KARANTH, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER BEARING NO.HOR:PRN:DISC:028:2011-12 DATED 11TH MAY 2012 UNDER ANNEXURE-V TO THE WP PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT/BANK BY ISSUE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT/BANK BY ISSUE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO PROMOTE THE PETITIONER TO THE CADRES OF MIDDLE MANAGEMENT GRADE SCALE-II & MIDDLE MANAGEMENT GRADE SCALE-III FROM THE DATE HIS JUNIORS WERE PROMOTED TO THE SAID SCALES AND GRANT ALL SUCH BENEFITS FLOWING FROM SUCH ORDERS AND REGULATE THE CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF THE PETITIONER ACCORDINGLY AND ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 14.06.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed assailing the order dated 11.05.2012 passed by the respondent-Bank thereby rejecting petitioner’s representation to consider him for promotion.
The petitioner joined the services of respondent-Bank
as an officer by direct recruitment in 1985. The Bank issued a Circular initiating promotion process for filling up one vacancy in the cadre of Middle Management Grade Scale-II by promotion from the cadre of Junior Management Grade Scale-I. Petitioner’s grievance is that though he was interviewed, one P.S.Hegde, an officer
junior in rank to petitioner was promoted to Middle Management Grade Scale-II. Petitioner contends that the promotion within the Bank’s Middle Management Grade Scale-II should be primarily based on seniority. Petitioner citing various legal precedents laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court contends that the rejection of representation of petitioner runs contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sivaiah vs. K.Addanki Babu1 and the judgment rendered in the case of Union of India vs. Lt.Gen. Rajendra Singh Kadyan2 .
1 (1998) 6 SCC 720
2 (2000) 6 SCC 698
The petitioner therefore contends that minimum merit necessary for the post should necessarily be assessed either by subjecting the candidates to written examination or an interview or by assessment of their work performance during the previous years. On principle of seniority-cum-merit, petitioner contends that he could not have been denied promotion by any stretch of imagination. Petitioner claims that promotion has to be necessarily met strictly in terms of seniority.
petition and have stoutly denied the claim made by the petitioner. The respondent-Bank on the contrary contends that in terms of promotion policy, petitioner’s performance for the preceding 3 years was assessed by the committee comprising of three experts and he was subjected to interview. In the year 1995 under the promotion policy, an officer who is in the zone of consideration for promotion
has to obtain a minimum of 30 marks out of 45 in performance appraisal as is evident in Annexure-R1. The respondent-Bank claimed that petitioner has secured only
21.01 marks in performance appraisal. Similarly, for the year 1998, the promotion policy mandated that officer should obtain a minimum of 35 out of 70 in the performance appraisal. Petitioner has obtained 28.44 in performance appraisal and 12 marks in interview. Similarly, in the year 2000, an officer claiming promotion should obtain a minimum of 35 marks out of 70 in performance appraisal and 50 marks combined aggregate of performance appraisal and interview. The petitioner obtained 40.25 in performance appraisal and 8.5 marks in interview. Therefore, petitioner has, in all, obtained 48.75 as against minimum qualifying marks of 50 which is evident from Annexure-R2. Similarly, in 2002, an officer was required to obtain minimum of 40% marks in performance appraisal in the previous 5 years and 50 marks total in performance appraisal and interview. Petitioner has obtained 48.81, which is combined marks. The petitioner has in fact secured 32 in test performance, 10.80 in performance appraisal and 6 marks in interview. Petitioner therefore obtained 48.75 as against minimum
qualifying marks of 50. On these set of grounds, the Bank
has sought for dismissal of the petition.
Scale-II should primarily be based on seniority alone with merit playing a secondary role. Petitioner of course has invoked various legal precedents laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sivaiah vs. K.Addanki Babu and Union of India vs. Lt.Gen.Rajendra Singh Kadyan (supra).
presented by both the petitioner and respondent-Bank as
well as on thorough review of relevant rules and records, this Court finds that respondent-Bank have diligently followed its prescribed procedure in assessing petitioner’s eligibility for promotion.
the respondent-Bank. It is in fact based on seniority, petitioner is considered for performance appraisal and he has appeared before the committee and is subjected to interview. Therefore, what can be gathered is that respondent-Bank’s promotion policy encompass a holistic approach that consists both seniority and merit. The respondent’s contention in this regard is supported by Bank’s established procedure as per Annexures-R1 and R2 which contemplates a comprehensive evaluation process involving performance assessment and interviews.
allowed him to be appraised and interviewed. However, his overall score did not meet the qualifying criteria for promotion. The promotion committee, which was duly constituted and included independent members from NABARD, the sponsoring Bank, RBI, and the SC/ST commission, conducted the assessments. There is no evidence of bias against the petitioner, and the rejection of his promotion was based on established procedures and criteria.
therefore, the sealed cover procedure adopted against the petitioner and the penalty inflicted by the Disciplinary Authority which was set aside by this Court and the sealed cover was opened by the committee clearly demonstrate that rejection of petitioner’s representation is not at all biased. On the contrary, the petitioner’s failure to meet the minimum criteria for promotion is determined by the Bank’s established rules and procedure and render his claim untenable.
ORDER
The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly,
stands dismissed.
Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
CA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioner is entitled to promotion based solely on seniority despite failing to meet minimum performance marks?
Whether the Bank's promotion policy requiring seniority-cum-merit was correctly followed and the rejection was arbitrary?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sivaiah vs. K.Addanki BabuReferred¶26
Sivaiah vs. K.Addanki Babu (1998) 6 SCC 720 · Who else cites this
Union of India vs. Lt.Gen. Rajendra Singh KadyanReferred¶26
Union of India vs. Lt.Gen. Rajendra Singh Kadyan (2000) 6 SCC 698 · Who else cites this
J.K.SURESH S/O J.C.KALLATHAPPA
CHIKMAGALUR – KODAGU GRAMEENA BANK
KAVERI GRAMEENA BANK
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
