Sri H v Venkatesh Vs State Bank of Mysore — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri H v Venkatesh Vs State Bank of Mysore — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:47033 WP No. 25552 of 2013

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

WRIT PETITION NO. 25552 OF 2013 (S-R)

BETWEEN:

SRI H V VENKATESH S/O LATE H.S. VEDVYSACHAR,

AGED 60 YEARS,

CHIEF MANAGER (RETD) ZONAL OFFICE, BANGALORE ZONE-2,

Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

STATE BANK OF MYSORE, RESIDING AT 605, SHESHA-SHAYEE 10^TH CROSS, BHUVANESHWARINAGAR, BANASHANKARI 3^RD STAGE, BANGALORE-560085

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. M MADHAVACHAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE BANK OF MYSORE

HEAD OFFICE: AVENUE ROAD, BANGALORE-560002 REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:47033 WP No. 25552 of 2013

HC-KAR

THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER-II

INCHARGE OF H.R. STATE BANK OF MYSORE, H.O. AVENUE ROAD, BANGALORE-560002.

THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER

STATE BANK OF INDIA (KARNATAKA CIRCLE) LOCAL HEAD OFFICE ST. MARKS ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. T.P. MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 & R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ;CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO SELECTION OF OFFICERS TO SMGS-V IN PURSUANCE OF CIRCULAR DATED 30.8.2012 VIDE ANN-B AND ALL CONNECTED RECORDS, PERUSE THE SAME, DECLARE THE PETITIONER AS ONE SELECTED AND PROMOTED FROM THE CADRE OF SMGS-IV TO SMGS-V WITH EFFECT FROM 1.11.2012 TO THE DATE OF RETIREMENT NAMELY 28.2.2013 DIRECT THE REVISION OF PAY PAYABLE TO THE PETITIONER WITH CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF OF GRANTING ALL OTHER BENEFITS ARISING OUT OF SUCH REVISION INCLUDING THE COST OF THIS PROCEEDINGS

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:47033 WP No. 25552 of 2013

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:

(i) call for records pertaining to selection of officers to SMGS-V in pursuance of Circular dated 30.08.2012 vide Annexure-B and all connected records, peruse the same, and

(ii) declare the petitioner as one selected and promoted from the cadre of SMGS-IV to SMGS-V with effect from 01.11.2012 to the date of retirement namely 28.02.2013;

(iii) direct the revision of pay payable to the petitioner with consequential relief of granting all other benefits arising out of such revision including the cost of this proceedings;

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

The petitioner was appointed as a Typist-cum-Clerk on 28.06.1972 and he was promoted in Group B (Merit channel), as a Deputy Manager MMGS-II,

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:47033 WP No. 25552 of 2013

HC-KAR

promoted as a Deputy Manager MMGS-III and promoted as a Senior Manager SMGS-IV. A Circular was issued on 30.08.2012 stipulating the policy for promotion for the year 2012-13. The list of zone of selection showing the place of the petitioner in serial No.3 was published on 08.10.2012. On 16.10.2012, the list of promotees from SMGS-IV to SMGS-V was published.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the publication of list of promotees dated 16.10.2012, preferred an appeal before the appellate authority i.e., the Managing Director. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. Hence, this writ petition.

The respondents filed a statement of objections contending that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and contended that the petitioner appeared for the interview for promotion from SMGS-IV to SMGS-V during 2012.

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:47033 WP No. 25552 of 2013

HC-KAR

The petitioner did not come out successfully in the interview and he was not promoted to the post of SMGS-V.

Against his non-promotion, the petitioner submitted a review petition before the competent authority which was not considered, as the petitioner was not successful in the interview, who had scored least marks. Hence, the petitioner was not promoted.

It is also contended that the petitioner cannot claim promotion as a matter of right. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 25.10.2012 and the Appellate Authority should have disposed of the appeal within 60 days from the date of receipt of the appeal, as per

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:47033 WP No. 25552 of 2013

HC-KAR

the Staff Supervising: Promotion policy for General Cadre Officers, Promotion to MMGS-II and III, SMGSIV and V.

He submits that the appeal was disposed of by the Appellate Authority after the petitioner returned from service. He submits that the petitioner is entitled for a promotion to SMGS-V. The respondents have declined to promote the petitioner. The action of the respondents in declining to promote the petitioner is arbitrary and perverse. He also submits that the petitioner was eligible for promotion. The said aspect was not properly considered and the Appellate Authority has committed an error. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents submits that a respondents have issued a Circular dated 30.08.2012 stipulating the policy for promotion for the year 2012-13. He submits that for promotion

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:47033 WP No. 25552 of 2013

HC-KAR

to Grade of SMGS-V, break-up of various components of scores were taken into consideration, according to which, the total marks is 100, whereas, the petitioner has scored 74.30, which was the least in the list of officers in SMGS-V. Hence, the petitioner was not entitled for promotion to SMGS-V. For the said reason, the respondents have declined to promote the petitioner to SMGS-V. The action of the respondents in denying to promote the petitioner is just and proper. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is working in the respondent-Bank. He joined the services in the respondent-Bank in 1972 and was promoted to different positions. He was promoted as a Senior Manager SMGS-IV on 01.11.2003. Meanwhile, the

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:47033 WP No. 25552 of 2013

HC-KAR

respondents have issued a Circular dated 30.08.2012, wherein they had stipulated a policy for promotion for the year 2012-13. For the promotion from SMGS-IV to SMSG-V for 2012-13, there is a breakup of various components of scores that were

to be taken into consideration i.e., out of total 100 marks, 80 marks for AARF and 20 marks for interview. It is contended that an Officer should have secured a minimum AARF score of 80 during the last four years or best of four out of five years AARFs in the present cadre, may also be eligible to be considered, even though they may have a score of less than 80 marks in any of the relevant years.

It is clarified that the score awarded by the reviewing authority only shall be reckoned rank for the purpose. For officers becoming eligible for the first time (4 years' service), the best 4 out of 5 would be applicable and AARFs available for the past four years would be considered.

9 -

NC: 2025:KHC:47033 WP No. 25552 of 2013

HC-KAR

The respondents have produced the mark sheet of the list of officers in SMGS-IV, according to which the petitioner has scored 74.30 and the number of attempts is shown as sixth. From the perusal of the mark sheet produced by the respondents, it discloses that the petitioner has scored least marks among the other successful candidates.

The petitioner has scored least marks. Hence, the petitioner was not successful in the interview. Considering the marks obtained by the officers, the respondents have caused the promotion to SMGS-V, whereas the petitioner was not eligible for the promotion to the grade of SMGS-V. The respondents have rightly denied the promotion to the petitioner for the grade of SMGS-V.

I do not find any error in the decision taken by the respondents in denying the promotion to the petitioner to the grade of SMGS-V.

10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:47033 WP No. 25552 of 2013

HC-KAR

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

(I) The writ petition is dismissed.

(II) In view of the dismissal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are dismissed accordingly.

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

RK

CT:KHV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24