L K Sharma, S/O Shri B.N. Sharma Vs the Governor

The Governor, Reserve Bank Of India, Mumbai-400 001 2. The Principal Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank Of India, Central Office Building, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai - 400 001.

¶10

The Chairman, Reserve Bank Of India Services Selection Board, 6Th Flor, Hongkong Bank Building Near Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai-400 001.

¶11

The Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank Of India, Near Rambagh Circle, Jaipur.

¶12

Sanjeev Sinha, Officer Grade-A Through Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank Of India, Near Rambagh Circle, Jaipur.

¶13

R.k. Pradhan, Officer Grade-A Through Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank Of India, Near Rambagh Circle, Jaipur.

¶14

R.p. Singh, Officer Grade-A Through Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank Of India, Near Rambagh Circle, Jaipur.

¶15

Nathu Singh, Officer Grade-A Through Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank Of India, Near Rambagh Circle, Jaipur.

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

Connected With

¶18

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 778/2023

¶19

IN

¶20

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6287/1998

¶21

Surendra Kumar S/o Shri Hardev Lal Bhola, Aged About 72 Years, R/o A-3, Reserve Bank Officers Colony, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur.

¶22

(2 of 12) [SAW-776/2023]

¶23

[2025:RJ-JP:31242-DB]

¶24

----Appellant

¶25

Versus

¶26

The Governor, Reserve Bank Of India, Mumbai-400001

¶27

The Principal Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank Of India, Central Office Building, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai- 400001.

¶28

The Chairman, Reserve Bank Of India Services Selection Board, 6Th Floor, Hongkong Bank Building, Near Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai-400001.

¶29

The Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank Of India, Near Rambagh Circle, Jaipur.

¶30

Sanjeev Sinha, Officer Grade-A, Through Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank Of India, Near Rambagh Circle, Jaipur.

¶31

P.k. Pradhan, Officer Grade-A, Through Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank Of India, Near Rambagh Circle, Jaipur.

¶32

R.p. Singh, Officer Grade-A, Through Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank Of India, Near Rambagh Circle, Jaipur.

¶33

Nathu Singh, Officer Grade-A, Through Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank Of India, Near Rambagh Circle, Jaipur.

¶34

----Respondents

¶35

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. A.K. Sharma, Senior Counsel
	assisted by Mr. Rachit Sharma, through VC.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. R.N. Mathur, Senior Counsel assisted byMr. SanjaySrivastava.

¶36

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

¶37

Order

¶38

12/08/2025

¶39

[2025:RJ-JP:31242-DB]

¶40

[SAW-776/2023]

¶41

(3 of 12)

¶42

These appeals have been filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 21.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petitions filed by the petitioners were dismissed.

¶43

Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petitions has not considered the policy framed by the Reserved Bank of India more particularly Rule 29 of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Regulations of 1948’) whereby the original petitioners were denied promotion to higher post. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that, due to the erroneous interpretation given by the learned Single Judge, the appellants have been deprived of their rights of seniority and promotion, therefore, prayed for allowing the appeals.

¶44

Learned Senior Counsel appearing no behalf of the respondents opposed the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and submitted that ultimate discretion lies with the respondents-Bank as per Rule 29 of the Regulations of 1948, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeals filed on behalf of the appellants.

¶45

Admittedly, the appellants retired from service approximately 15 years ago. While considering the case of the original petitioners, the learned Single Judge took into account the service conditions of the employees of the Reserve Bank of India as governed by the Regulations of 1948.

¶46

The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petitions, in para No.5 to 22 of its order observed as under:-

¶47

(4 of 12)

¶48

[2025:RJ-JP:31242-DB]

¶49

[SAW-776/2023]

¶50

Heard and considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the material available on the record.

¶51

The service conditions of the employees of Reserve Bank of India (for short, ‘RBI’) are governed by Regulation, 1948. As per Regulation 29 of the Regulation 1948 “All appointments and promotions shall be made at the discretion of the Bank and notwithstanding his/her seniority in a grade employee shall have a right to be appointed or promoted to any particular post or grade.”

¶52

A Cadre Review Committee (for short, ‘CRC’) was constituted by the RBI in the year 1970 which gave recommendations in 1972, the counsel submitted that in view of the report of the CRC, the officers have been designated as Officer Grade ‘A’, Grade ‘B’, Grade ‘C’, Grade ‘D’ Grade ‘E’ and Grade ‘F’. Two methods of recruitment are in vogue in the Bank for recruitment of officers to the posts of Grade ‘B’. 35% of vacancies of officers in Grade ‘B’ in a panel year are filled in by direct recruitment from open market by competitive examination and interview. 15% of posts of officer Grade ‘B’ are filled in by selection by competitive merit i.e. examination-cum-interview from eligible Staff Officer of Grade ‘A’ and remaining 50% of officer Grade ‘B’ posts are filled by the Bank on the basis of select list prepared by Reserve Bank of India. Services Board forms a list of eligible Staff Officer Grade ‘A’ on the basis of interview and performance appraisal reports for the preceding three years.

¶53

A scheme of promotion of officers was formulated by the Reserve Bank of India and was circulated vide Administration Circular No.26 dated 31st December, 1980. the relevant portion of the promotion scheme is reproduced below:

¶54

“Officers-Promotion System

¶55

Prior to the introduction of Common Seniority and inter Group Mobility in the different grades of Officers belonging to erstwhile Groups I, II and III in the Bank, promotions to higher grades were being made group-wise on the basis of senioritycum-suitability. The Reserve Bank of India Officer Cadre Review Committee appointed in regard to recruitment, promotions, mobility of officers between different departments, etc. On the basis of their recommendations, the procedures for future recruitment, promotion, mobility between departments and inter changeability of posts, as communicated in Administration Circular 15 and 8 dated

¶56

(5 of 12)

¶57

[2025:RJ-JP:31242-DB]

¶58

[SAW-776/2023]

¶59

22nd May 1974 and 7th January 1978 respectively, had been formulated.

¶60

The Bank has since review the existing system of promotion in officers cadres. After careful consideration of the matter in all its aspects and with the approval of the Committee of the Central Board, it has been decided that the existing selection system may be modified to the extent indicate below.

¶61

Staff Officers Grade A & B.

¶62

The existing system of promotion to Staff Officers Grades A and B would continue. (i.e. Selection through Reserve Bank of India Services Board on the basis of scrutiny of Performance Appraisal Reports and interview in respect of promotion to Grade “B”. the zone of consideration was twice the number of vacancies plus officers belonging to SC/ST category falling in the third zone and the selection was on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability and officers who had attained the minimum qualifying standard were empanelled).”

¶63

An expert committee of Human Resources Development in Reserve Bank of India was formed by the Bank under the Chairmanship of Shri S.S. Marathe, former director of the Central Board of the Reserve Bank of India to undertake a review of the Bank’s existing policy with regard to Human Resources development and the Committee submitted its report to the Bank on 31st January 1992. The Bank reviewed its promotion policy on the basis of experience gained and in the light of recommendations of Marathe Committee and with the approval of the Committee of the Central board of Director of the Bank, introduced certain modifications in the officers promotion policy vide Administration Circular No.4 dated 29th November 1994 with effect from panel year commencing from 1st January, 1995. The promotion policy provided, inter alia as under:

¶64

“(i) System of Promotion

¶65

The selection process for identifying suitable officers for promotion to higher grades (from Grade ‘B’ to Grade ‘F’) would remain unchanged for officers in the Combined Seniority Group and those belonging to groups other than Department of Economic analysis and Policy (DEAP) and Department of Statistical Analysis and Computer Services (DESACS).

¶66

(6 of 12)

¶67

[2025:RJ-JP:31242-DB]

¶68

[SAW-776/2023]

¶69

However, selection interviews will be introduced for promotion of Research officer in Grade ‘B’ attached to Department of Economic Analysis and Policy (DEAP) and Department of Statistical Analysis and Computer Services (DESACS) to Assistant Adviser in Grade ‘C’. Also the system of determining\eligibility to cross the efficiency bar for officers in the elongated pay scale in Grade ‘D’/’E‘ in DEAP/DESACS would be modified by introducing an interview procedure to judge their suitability for crossing the efficiency bar. The composition of the Committee to hold the interviews will be decided separately. (ii) Zone of Consideration

¶70

The zone of consideration to identify officer to be interviewed/screened will be fixed at twice the number of estimated vacancies for promotions to Grade ‘B’, ‘C’ ‘D’ and ‘E’. This number will exclude the repeaters. In other words, the number of officers eligible for interview/screening will be those who were not selected earlier plus twice the number of expected vacancies. Further, in recognition of the nee for a very high level of selectivity for promotion to Grade ‘F’, the zone of consideration will be 3 times the number of anticipated vacancies, excluding repeaters.

¶71

Consistent with the above change, the extended zone of consideration for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe officers for promotion to posts upto Grade ‘C’ will be fixed at 3 times the number of vacancies.

¶72

(iii) Eligibility

¶73

Officers who have completed a minimum service of 3 years in a grade as on 1st January of the panel year would be eligible for consideration for promotion to the next higher grade. However, in the event of non-availability of adequate number of officers for interview, the minimum eligible service for interview/screening for promotion to the next higher grade would be relaxed to two years.

¶74

(iv) Size of Panel

¶75

The size of the panel of selected officers will be limited to the number of vacancies estimated for the year. The inter seniority in the existing grade of the officers

¶76

(7 of 12)

¶77

[2025:RJ-JP:31242-DB]

¶78

[SAW-776/2023]

¶79

empanelled for promotion will remain unchanged.”

¶80

The selection of officer Grade ‘A’ for promotion to Grade ‘B’ for the panel year 1998 was decided on the basis of marks obtained by the officers in the performance appraisal reports recorded for the preceding three years i.e. 1995, 1996 and 1997 and the marks obtained in the interview. The petitioner was considered along with other candidate by the Reserve Bank of India Services Board. The petitioner was interviewed by the interview board constituted by the Reserve Bank of India Services Board. To qualify in the interview the officer was required to score a minimum of 15 marks out of 50 marks fixed for the interview. In view of the fact that the size of the panel was restricted under the promotion scheme to the extent of number of vacancies, the element of selectivity and merit was introduced in the selection process. Seniority played a role for bringing the officer in the zone of consideration for being considered for promotion.

¶81

In pursuance of the existing procedure a Selection Committee was constituted by the Service Board and the petitioner along with other candidates were called for interview, who were falling within the zone of consideration for promotion from Officer Grade ‘A’ to Grade ‘B’. The petitioner appeared in interview and secured 28 marks out of 50 marks and as per the promotion policy, the average marks of performance appraisal reports for the previous three years i.e. 1995, 1996 and 1997 were added in the marks obtained in interview. The total marks of the appraisal reports were scaled down from 200 to 100. The petitioner secured 76 marks out of 100 and his total marks were 104 out of 150, while the respondent No. 5 secured 85 marks in ACR and 35 marks in interview and his total marks were 118. Similarly, the respondents No. 6 and 7 secured 114 and 116 marks on the basis of their ACR of three years and interview. Accordingly, they were granted promotion to the post of Officer Grade ‘B’.

¶82

From the pleadings and documents available on the record, it is clear that Seniority-Cum-Merit was not the only criteria for granting promotion. The criteria was based on the scrutiny of Annual Performance Appraisal Reports and interview. The criteria was Seniority-Cum-Suitability assessed on the basis of marks of ACR and interview and since the petitioner has secured less marks i.e. 104 marks, while the respondents No. 5, 6 and 7 have

¶83

(8 of 12)

¶84

[2025:RJ-JP:31242-DB]

¶85

[SAW-776/2023]

¶86

secured higher marks, that is why they were promoted to the post of Officer Grade ‘B’. 13. The similar controversy involved in this petition came before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Syndicate Bank Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Employees Association (supra) and it has been held in Para 14 as under:-

¶87

“14. We find no force in the above contention of Mr. Sachar. A perusal of the promotion policy goes to show that for the purpose of promotions in the cadre of officers from JMGS to MMGS II and from MMGS II to MMGS III and then up to 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 seniority. 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 interview 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 considered as promotion otherwise than by the method of selection. 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 up to scale IV points are given for seniority 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. 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

¶88

(9 of 12)

¶89

[2025:RJ-JP:31242-DB]

¶90

[SAW-776/2023]

¶91

VII shall be considered as promotions on selection basis. However the rule of reservation for SCs/STs will apply to appointments made by promotion on selection basis, subject to a procedure somewhat different from usual procedure adopted in filling up posts reserved for SCs and STs on selection basis alone for appointments to be made by direct recruitment.”

¶92

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. Samantaray (supra) has held that in absence of statutory rules, it is open for the employer to formulate its own promotion policy specifying area and parameter of weightage to be given in respect of seniority and merit separately and it has been held in Para No. 5 and 11 as under:-

¶93

“5. In response, Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that on a reading of the whole policy it is clear that seniority-cum-merit is not the only criteria for granting promotion. Para 7.2 itself makes it clear that as one goes higher in the hierarchy of posts seniority has lesser importance, and merit has overriding importance. A reference was made to Syndicate Bank Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Employees Association (Regd.), through its General Secretary, K.S. Badlia and Ors. v. Union of India, 1990 (Supp) SCC 350 to contend that where seniority-cum-merit and all other relevant aspects have been duly taken note of there is no scope for making a grievance. It pointed out that in the writ petition there was no challenge to the policy or its efficacy and, only during argument probably sustenance was drawn from the Rajasthan High Court's judgment and plea regarding the legality of para 7.2 was raised. It is also highlighted that the policy is in operation of more than a decade, and even without impleading a single officer who has been promoted on the basis of para 7.2, the writ petition was misconceived.

¶94

While laying down the promotion policy or rule, it is always open to the employer to specify area and parameter of weightage to be given in respect of merit and seniority separately so long as policy

¶95

(10 of 12)

¶96

[2025:RJ-JP:31242-DB]

¶97

[SAW-776/2023]

¶98

is not colourable exercise of power, or has the effect of violating of any statutorily scope of interference and other relatable. The decision in B.V. Shivaia (supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts and in law. That was a case where statutory rules governed the field. This Court, inter alia, held that fixing terms which are at variance with the statutory rules is impermissible. In the case at hand, prior to the formulation of policy in February, 1990, there were no codified prescriptions. It was the stand of the respondentemployer that prior to the formulation of the policy, certain guidelines existed and the objectives of the policy were to rationalize and codify the existing guidelines relating to promotions within officers cadre. There is no statutory rule operating. It is for the employer to stipulate the criteria for promotion, the same pertaining really to the area of policy making. It was, therefore, permissible for the respondent to have their own criteria for adjudging claims on the principle of seniority-cum-merit giving primacy to merit as well, depending upon the class, category and nature of posts in the hierarchy of administration and the requirements of efficiency for such posts.

¶99

The judgment relied upon by the petitioners in the case of B.V. Sivaiah (supra) is not applicable looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as the respondents have proceeded with the provision of the promotion on the basis of the promotion policy prevailing on the relevant time.

¶100

Time and again Hon’ble Apex Court has held that no employee has a right to get promotion. Such employee only has a right to be considered for promotion. In the case of Hardev Singh Vs. Union of India reported in 2011(10) SCC 121, it is always open to an employer to change its policy in relation to giving promotion to the employees. The Court would normally not interference with such policy decisions. It has been held in Para 17, 25 to 27 as under:

¶101

“17. It cannot be disputed that no employee has a right to get promotion; so the Appellant had no right to get promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General but he had a right to be considered for promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General and if

¶102

(11 of 12)

¶103

[2025:RJ-JP:31242-DB]

¶104

[SAW-776/2023]

¶105

as per the prevailing policy, he was eligible to be promoted to the said rank, he ought to have been considered. In the instant case, there is no dispute to the fact that the Appellant's case was duly considered by the SSB for his promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General.

¶106

In our opinion, it is always open to an employer to change its policy in relation to giving promotion to the employees. This Court would normally not interfere in such policy decisions. We would like to quote the decision of this Court in the case of Virender S. Hooda and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. (1999) 3 SCC 696 where this Court had held in para 4 of the judgment that: “...When a policy has been declared by the State as to the manner of filling up the post and that policy is declared in terms of rules and instructions issued to the Public Service Commission from time to time and so long as these instructions are not contrary to the rules, the Respondents ought to follow the same.

¶107

Similarly, in Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India and Ors. (2002) 2 SCC 333, it has been held that a court cannot strike down a policy decision taken by the Government merely because it feels that another policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or logical. It is not within the domain of the court to weigh the pros and cons of the policy or to test the degree of its beneficial or equitable disposition.

¶108

For the aforestated reasons, we are of the view that no injustice had been caused to the Appellant as his case was duly considered for promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General by the SSB twice but as other officers were found better than the Appellant, he could not be promoted. In the circumstances, we do not find any substance in the appeal and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.”

¶109

Since Rule 29 of the Regulation 1948 is clear and specific and it says that all appointments and promotions shall be made at the discretion of the Bank and notwithstanding his seniority in a grade no employee shall have a right to be appointed and promoted to any particular post or grade.

¶110

A discretion has been given to the RBI to frame policy of promotion and as per Rule 29, no person can claim promotion only on the basis of seniority. Hence, the respondents framed their own policy for promotion of Staff Officers from Grade ‘A’ to ‘B’ on the basis of criteria of Seniority-Cum-Suitability and on the basis of their marks in interview and

¶111

(12 of 12)

¶112

[2025:RJ-JP:31242-DB]

¶113

[SAW-776/2023]

¶114

previous last three ACRs. The petitioner has failed to secure higher marks in comparison to the Respondents No.4 to 6, who have secured higher marks on the basis of promotion criteria fixed by the Bank. Hence, promotion was not given to the petitioner on the post of Grade ‘B’ Officer.

¶115

Since the petitioners have neither challenged the legality and constitutional validity of Regulation 29 of the Regulation 1948 nor challenged the existing policy of promotion, hence, they are not entitled to raise any grievance about the criteria and process of promotions.

¶116

Accordingly, both these petitions fail and the same are dismissed.

¶117

Stay application and all applications (pending, if any) also stand dismissed.

¶118

No order as to costs.”

¶119

We have carefully examined the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge, particularly the findings recorded on Rule 29 of the Regulations of 1948. In our considered view, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the ultimate discretion lies with the Bank in relation to the consideration of promotion cases for its employees.

¶120

We have also taken note of the fact that the appellants retired from their service approximately 15 years ago and at this stage we are not inclined to disturb the settled position within the Department regarding seniority and promotion of its employees.

¶121

Accordingly, in our considered opinion, no illegality has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petitions filed on behalf of the appellants.

¶122

In that view of the matter, these appeals stand dismissed.

¶123

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶124

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶125

MG/38-39

L K Sharma, S/O Shri B.N. Sharma v. the Governor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L K Sharma, S/O Shri B.N. Sharma v. the Governor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Rajasthan Vs Ramesh Chand Harijan Son of Shri Chitarlal Harijan

Sri Karan Narendra Agriculture University Vs Dr. Priyanka Joshi D/O Shri Prem Chand Joshi

Zila Parishad Jhalawar Vs Mushtaq Khan

Mahesh Agarwal Son of Shri Shanti Lal Agarwal, Vs the Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement

Principal of Chief Conservator and Ors. Vs Satyapal and Anr.

Shri Hari Kishan Meena S/O Shri Mahadev Meena Vs Union of India