Himachal Pradesh High Court
Gian Singh Negi And Ors. vs State Bank Of India And Ors. on 10 June, 1999
Equivalent citations: (2001)IIILLJ971HP
Author: D. Raju
Bench: D. Raju, Lokeshwar Singh Panta
JUDGMENT D. Raju, C.J.
1. The above writ petition has been filed jointly by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition may kindly be allowed with costs throughout and the respondents may be directed to give the benefit of promotion to OJMGS-I to petitioners 1 and 2 from the date of their eligibility i.e. with effect from August 1, 1988 with all consequential benefits and also to give the same benefit to petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 with effect from August 1, 1992."
The petitioners joined the service of the respondent Bank in the Clerical Cadre, the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 5 being appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier and petitioner 3 as Clerk and 6 as Cashier. Their next avenue of promotion appears to be as Officer in the Junior Management Grade Scale-I (JMGS-I). The petitioners indisputably belong to the Scheduled Tribe and having regard to the reservation policy which has been notified to come into force on and from March 25, 1970 and adopted for the Bank with effect from March 1, 1978 also, they claim to be entitled to be considered as against the percentage of reservation for SC and ST to the extent of 15 per cent and 7 1/2 per cent respectively and that the benefit of 7 1/2 per cent reservation should have been extended to them in the matter of such promotion to the JMGS-I. There is no controversy over the position that the petitioners appeared in the departmental written test as also in the viva voce held for the purpose of promotion to the officers grade and all the petitioners were found to be qualified for promotion to JMGS-I with effect from August 1, 1992 and by the circular order No. Per. CSL-103 dated March 30, 1993 they were said to have been placed in order of merit at Serial Nos. 42, 52, 53, 61 and 62, vide Annexure-PB.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that petitioners No. 1 and 2 were eligible for being called to undertake the test for promotion which was held even as early as on October 23, 1988 for promotion to officers JMGS-I Cadre and similarly all the petitioners became eligible for being considered for promotion with effect from August 1, 1992 for which the test was said to have been held on March 14, 1993 and that their claims were not properly considered and countenanced as was expected, in accordance with law. The case of the petitioners is that in the selection for promotion held for the year 1988, the claims of petitioners No. 1 and 2 came to be ignored and their rights denied on account of, what the petitioners would contend, to be due to the omission in preparing separate merit list in accordance with their proportionate percentage of reservation of post and the infirmity or error committed in preparing a joint merit list of SC and ST candidates. This procedure was said to be not only illegal and opposed to the relevant orders of the Government of India but also the circular order of the respondent Bank. In support of such grievance it is also claimed that for the year 1988 and in respect of the written test held on October 23, 1988 the claims of persons including petitioners No. 1 and 2 ought to have been considered keeping in view the fact that 44 posts were required to be filled up from out of the reservation meant for ST Candidates but that they were not even allowed to take the written test.
3. So far as the promotions to be given effect to with effect from August 1, 1992, for which the test was said to have been held, the grievance of the petitioners was that though the petitioners were invited to take the written examination and also called for interview, their claims were not properly considered by according to them the permissible relaxation to the extent of 5 per cent in the written test and 10 per cent in the interview/ viva voce as provided in the reservation policy in respect of SC/ST provided for the State Bank of India. According to the petitioners if only due allowance has been properly given by applying the relaxation as envisaged in the policy, the claims of the petitioners ought to have been countenanced and all the petitioners, at any rate, should have been accorded promotion due for the year 1992 with effect from August 1, 1992. It is actually on the basis of such grievance the petitioners asserted the claim that petitioners No. 1 and 2 who have been wrongly denied their legitimate opportunity and prospects of participating in the written test held for the year 1988 must be ordered to be given the benefit of promotion to officers JMGS-I cadre from the date of their eligibility, namely, with effect from August 1, 1988 with all consequential benefits and so far as the petitioners No. 3 to 5 are concerned, with effect from August 1, 1992.
4. Notice has been ordered to the respondents and the respondents have filed a reply. There is no controversy between the parties about the percentage of reservation meant for the ST category candidates or the circular orders applicable to the case. While dealing with the claim asserted for petitioners No. 1 and 2 for the year 1988, the respondents have stated in their reply as follows;
"In the year 1988 the Central Office of the Bank sanctioned 366 vacancies by promotion channel of officers of JMGS-I for Chandigarh Circle and according to the Reservation Policy. 55 SC vacancies and 28 ST vacancies were reserved out of the total 366 vacancies.
The eligibility criteria for general category candidates became 10 years 8 months 15 days confirmed service (i.e. more than 8 years confirmed service) and so the general category candidates with the said length of service were called for the test. However, the service norms could not be relaxed in case of SC/ST employees by 2 years, as per Para 4 (b) of the Promotion Policy (Annexure R-1) because of the necessity to maintain the ratio of 3 candidates to one vacancy. By giving relaxation of 11 1/2 months to SC/ST employees the ratio of 3 candidates to one vacancy could be maintained. If 2 years relaxation was given to those number of candidates who were to be called for the test would be far more than the prescribed ratio of 3 candidates to one vacancy. This would have been against the provision of Para 4 (b) of the Promotion Policy (Annexure R 1).199 SC candidates were finally selected and only 2 ST candidates were selected and the entire backlog of 54 SC vacancies at the end of year 1984, and the current reservation of 55 ST candidates for the year 1988 was totally filled in. In addition to this, backlog of 11 vacancies meant for ST candidates was exchanged in favour of the SC candidates as per Para 4 of the Reservation Policy. Therefore, the backlog for the SC at the end of the year 1988 became nil. Since 2 vacancies were filled from ST candidates in the year 1988 and 11 vacancies reserved for ST candidates were exchanged with SC candidates, as such the backlog of 13 for the year 1982 was exhausted, as such the backlog for ST employees at the end of the year 1988 became 41 (10+ 3+ 28).
In the year 1988 there was also backlog of 3 vacancies for SC and 1 vacancy for ST of Programmer-cum-Operator Officer Junior Management Grade Scale-I (Specialist Cadre) post for which the promotional written test was held in the year 1988. As per instructions issued by the Bank's Central Officer dated December 28, 1990, copy enclosed as Annexure R-2, this backlog (3 posts for SC and 1 post for ST) was merged with the OJMGS-I and consequently the total backlog of 3 vacancies for SC and 42 for ST was arrived at the end of the year 1988.
It is therefore, incorrect that the petitioners were eligible for appearing in the test which was held on October 23, 1988. Copy of the Bank Circular dated September 26, 1988 is enclosed as Annexure R-3".
5. So far as the claim asserted in respect of the promotion relating to the year 1992, it has been stated for the respondents in their reply as follows:
"Vide Circular dated September 28, 1992, copy of which is annexed as Annexure R-4, the Promotion Policy of the Bank dated July 30, 1979 (Annexure R-1) was modified. Under old Promotion Policy (R-1) the number of candidates to be called for the written test was 3 times the number of vacancies. In the revised Promotion Policy (Annexure R-4) which was issued on September 28, 1992 the number of candidates to be called for the written test is 5 times the number of vacancies with the proviso that a candidate once called for test will continuously be called in the subsequent year also after irrespective of the 1:5 ratio till he exhausts all chances to be availed by him. Thus the revised Promotion Policy (R-4) dated September 28, 1992 being prospective in its operation has nothing to do with the test which was held on October 23, 1988, in pursuance of the Bank's circular dated September 26, 1988 (Annexure R-3).
It is further admitted that the petitioners have exchanged the reservation amongst the SC/ST only once in the year 1988 as per Para 4 of the Reservation Policy. There is no intermingling as alleged. For the test held on October 23, 1988 there were 55 vacancies reserved for SC, and 28 vacancies for ST. The backlog position at the end of the year 1984 was 54 vacancies for SC and 26 vacancies for ST. The figure of 44 as mentioned above by the petitioners is incorrect, therefore, denied. Government of India in its Office Memo dated January 27, 1972 had provided for reservation of 15% and 7 1/2% for SC and ST candidates respectively. This is the same as in the Reservation Policy of the bank which came in effect with effect from March 1, 1978, therefore, the Office Memo dated November 27, 1972 does not help the petitioners at all. It is incorrect that the respondent-Bank have prepared any joint merit list as alleged."
In relation to the selection for the year 1992, the respondents further state as follows:
"That after the result of the written examination held on March 14, 1993 in which all the petitioners had qualified and an interview was held in which the petitioners also appeared. The final result was declared on the basis of the joint performance in the written test and interview on April 22, 1993. Copy of the result dated April 22, 1993 is annexed as Annexure R-5. The petitioners did not qualify for promotion so they were not promoted. It is incorrect that there are 46 vacancies for ST candidates at present as alleged. In the year 1992 the Central Office of the Bank sanctioned 50 vacancies by promotion channel of officer JMGS-I for Chandigarh Circle. Out of these 8 vacancies were reserved for SC and 3 vacancies were reserved for ST. Thus the number of total vacancies reserved for SC and ST candidates were 11 for SC (3+ 8) and 45 for ST (42+ 3). On the basis of the written test held on March 14, 1993 and subsequent interview for 50 vacancies sanctioned for the year 1992, 19 employees belonging to SC category and 15 employees belonging to ST category were finally selected for promotion vide result dated April 22, 1993 (Annexure R-5). Thus the backlog for SC vacancies became Nil and the backlog for ST was arrived at 30 (27 for the year 1988 and 3 for the year 1992). Thus there is a number of posts lying vacant as per the averments of the petitioners are not admitted as correct."
6. In addition thereto the respondents placed reliance upon the decision reported in Syndicate Bank Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Employees Association v. Union of India, 1990-II-LLJ-354 (SC) and Bihar State Harijan Kalyan Parishad v. Union of India, 1985-II-LLJ-173 (SC) and that the bank has been scrupulously following the reservation policy as contained in Annexure R-1 in accordance with the law laid down in those decisions. Ultimately the respondents pray that the petitioners' claim do not merit acceptance and deserves to be rejected.
7. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as also Mr. K.D. Sood, learned counsel for the respondents, made detailed submissions reiterating the stand taken on behalf of their respective clients, as adverted to above from the pleadings. Strong reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing on either side on portions of some of the decisions of the Apex Court to which reference will be made at the appropriate stage. In the teeth of the nature of the irregularities alleged to have been committed by the respondents in the matter of selection of candidates for promotion to the Officers JMGS-I cadre for the years 1988 and 1992, we directed the learned counsel for the respondent Bank to make available the relevant selection materials to verify the veracity of the grievance before actually considering the impact of those alleged grievances on the ultimate selection made in those years.
8. In Syndicate Bank Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Employees Association v. Union of India (supra), a Bench consisting of two of their Lordships of the Apex Court, held that the benefit of the reservation policy to the members of SC/ST cannot be denied on the ground that promotional posts are to be filled by method of selection and that the application of the rule of reservation will be subject to a procedure somewhat different from usual procedure adopted in filling up posts reserved for SCs and STs on selection basis alone than for appointments to be made by direct recruitment. The learned Judges also directed the respondent Bank, in that case the Syndicate Bank to compute the backlog of unfilled reserved quota available to the SC/ST Officers in the promotional posts with effect from January 1, 1978, the date of introduction of reservation policy in the respondent Bank and also issue further direction to grant promotion to such employees of the reserved category with all consequential benefits of salary and allowances from respective dates on which they should have been promoted after applying the roster system in their favour. It may be also pointed out that in doing so their Lordships also observed that the bank committed a serious mistake in not applying the principles already laid down by the Apex Court in the decision reported in Bihar State Harijan Kalyan Parishad v. Union of India (supra). In National Federation of SBI and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 1995 (3) SCC 532 : 1996-I-LLJ-435 a Bench consisting of three of their Lordships of the Apex Court held that in the absence of a contrary provision, the rule of carry forward cannot be rendered applicable retrospectively and each year has to be treated as the unit for applying the rule of reservation or concession, particularly when the relevant office memorandum provided for giving concession only at the time of selection. On that view of the matter the learned Judges non-suited the petitioner before the Apex Court who sought to agitate for the relief claimed in respect of the year 1978 by filing a case in 1990.
9. In State Bank of India Scheduled Caste /Tribe Employees Welfare Association and Anr. v. State Bank of India and Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1838 : 1996 (4) SCC 119 yet another Bench of three of their Lordships of the Apex Court had an occasion to deal with a case of the nature with reference to the very respondent Bank and while adverting to both the decisions reported as also the decision reported and declined to follow the decision but preferred to follow the one rendered in 1996-I-LLJ-435 (SC) (supra), the same being that of a larger Bench. It was ultimately held by their Lordships of the Apex Court that there is no scope for applying the policy of relaxation retrospectively, the same being available from the date when it was granted only and it cannot also be claimed as a matter of right. It was further categorically held by their Lordships that the reserved vacancy in the promotional post stood lapsed if not filled after three years under the circular dated April 3, 1978 and the lapsed posts cannot be revived. As for the extent to which the carry forward vacancy of earlier years can be filled up in the subsequent years, while repelling the claim on behalf of the employees, it has been observed that such contentions about the carry forward of the reserved vacancy for a period of three years at the end of which they lapsed and the provision that in any given year not more than 50 per cent of the available vacancies should be reserved, have been negatived by the Apex Court in the decision reported in Akil Bhartiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India 1981 (1) SCC 246 : 1981-I-LLJ-209. It was further observed therein as follows:
"In that case a similar provision for carrying forward of reserved vacancies for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes for a period of three years was upheld by this Court. This Court also upheld the instructions issued by the Railway Board in that case to the effect that in any given year not more than 50 per cent of the promotional posts should be made available to the reserved category of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates; holding that the carry-forward rule should not result in any given year in the selection or appointment of Scheduled Tribe candidates in excess of 50%. In the light of this judgment, the scheme formulated by the State Bank of India under the two circulars of April 3, 1978 and July 28, 1983, thus cannot be faulted."
In Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India and Ors. (supra), it has been further held as follows:
"It is true that in Balaji case AIR 1973 SC 649 and Devadasan's case AIR 1964 SC 179 : 1965-II-LLJ-560 the carry forward rule for backward classes far exceeded 50 per cent and was struck down. We must remember that the percentage of reservation for backward classes including SC & ST was rather high in both the cases. In Devadasan case the Court went into the actuals, not into the hypotheticals. This is most important.
The Court actually verified the degree of deprivation of the 'equal opportunity' right and discovered:
In the case before us 45 vacancies have actually been filled out of which 29 have gone to members of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes on the basis of reservation permitted by the carry forward rule. This comes to about 64.4 per cent of reservation. Such being the result of the operation of the carry forward rule we must, on the basis of the decision in Balaji case hold that the rule is bad."
What is striking is that the Court did not take an academic view or make a notional evaluation but checked up to satisfy itself about the seriousness of the infraction of the right. On that footing, the petitioners have not demonstrated that in any particular year, virtually and in actual terms of promotion, there has been a substantial excess over 50 per cent in favour of the SC & ST promotees. Mathematical calculations, departing from realities of the case, may startle us without justification, the apprehension being misplaced. All that we need say is that the Railway Board shall take care to issue instructions to see that in no year shall SC & ST candidates be actually appointed to substantially more than 50 per cent of the promotional posts. Some excess will not affect as mathematical precision is difficult in human affairs, but substantial excess will void the selection. Subject to this rider or condition that the 'carry forward' rule shall not result, in any given year, in the selection or appointments of SC & ST candidates considerably in excess of 50 per cent, we uphold Annexure 'I'."
10. In the light of the above, the claims of the petitioners have to be considered, also keeping in view the law declared by their Lordships of the Apex Court that the carry forward rule shall not result in any given year, in the selection or appointment of SC and ST candidates considerably in excess of 50%.
11. So far as the claim projected with reference to the year 1988 is concerned, it is a fact that the petitioners No. 1 and 2, who are otherwise eligible have not been called for undertaking the written test before they could be subjected to interview for being considered for selection for promotion. It cannot be seriously disputed and it is not also so disputed before us factually that for the year 1988 there were 41 posts reserved for ST candidates and available, taking together the current vacancies for the year and clubbing also the backlog of the vacancies available and that, according to the respondent Bank, the service norms envisaged for relaxation in the case of SC/ST employees by two years in terms of para 4(b) of the promotion policy filed as Annexure R-1 were not accorded on account of the necessity to maintain the ratio of 3:1. In dealing with this situation, it is also, as set out (supra), the respondent who asserted that if two years relaxation was given to those number of candidates who were to be called for the test, it would be far more than the prescribed ratio of three candidates to one vacancy and this reasoning is sought to be urged both in the pleadings as also at the time of argument for the respondent Bank.
12. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side in this regard. In our view, not only it is a stale reason but, in our view, it is an arbitrary reason apparently invented to defeat the claims of petitioners 1 and 2 in an unreasonable manner for the year 1988. In. according relaxation envisaged in Para 4(b) of the promotion policy, there was no justification to fall back upon the maintenance of any 3:1 ratio and as long as the required number of posts are available for the ST candidates and the same could not be filled up on account of the dearth of candidates the bank was obliged to have considered the claims of the petitioners No. 1 and 2 also exercising the powers of relaxation as envisaged in the promotion policy and obliged to have called them. But at the same time, this infirmity, if any, committed has been not challenged at the appropriate point of time and in the teeth of the petitioners participating in the selection process for the subsequent years and also having regard to the long lapse of time, it is not either possible or permissible for us to direct the holdings of any test for the earlier years in relation to the petitioners for considering their claim for promotion pertaining to the year 1988. The ratio of the decisions of their Lordships of the Apex Court reported in 1996-I-LLJ-435 (SC) (supra) and AIR 1996 SC 1838 : 1996 (4) SCC 119 (supra) in this connection would dissuade us from adopting such a course at this point of time. Had it been that in the subsequent selection following the selection held for the year 1988, petitioners No. 1 and 2 who were called to undertake the written test as well as the interview, were able to come out successfully and ranked first or obtained top ranks atleast among ST candidates, there would have been some justification atleast for us to advance their position and direct them to be considered to have been selected and appointed as against the promotions made for the year 1988. But unfortunately, the petitioners, including petitioners 1 and 2, who have been allowed to take the written test in 1992 and also called for interview, were held not to have been successful in the selection and, therefore, we are obliged to first consider whether the challenge made to their non-selection for the year 1992 merits our acceptance and deserves to be sustained;
13. We will now take up the question as to the claim of the petitioners with reference to the year 1992. At the expense of repetition, it may be again pointed out that if the petitioners have been and are held to be successful in the selection for the year 1992 which followed the earlier selection in 1988, there could be atleast some justification for countenancing the claim of petitioners 1 and 2 for the year 1988. So far as the year 1992 is concerned, the vacancies available by virtue of reservation policy in respect of ST candidates, both the current vacancies as also the backlog put together was 45. In view of the above and having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decision reported in 1981-I-LLJ-209 (SC) as also AIR 1996 SC 1838 : 1996 (4) SCC 119 (supra), the total reservation for ST cannot exceed 50 per cent of the total number of vacancies available for being filled up in that year which was only said to be 52. Taking into account that the total reservation could not be more than 50 per cent of the total vacancies to be filled up in that year and that it cannot, therefore, be in excess of 26, the respondent Bank seems to have earmarked and allocated about 15 vacancies to be filled up as against the reserved category of SC candidates and 11 for ST candidates. In the light of a grievance made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there had been no proper consideration and relaxation given to the permissible extent of 5 per cent of the required qualifying marks at the written examination stage and 10 per cent of the qualifying marks at the stage of interview, we have perused the relevant records, including the tabulated statement and the relevant proceedings drawn by the management and which were also placed before us for consideration by the management of the respondent Bank, to find out the correctness or otherwise of the claim made for the year 1992. As a matter of fact, the learned counsel for the petitioners was also allowed to peruse the same with the assistance of petitioner No. 1 who was present in Court to enable him to instruct the learned counsel for the petitioner. On going through the same, we find the same to contain, in respect of all the 78 candidates who were included in the merit list prepared the required details such as the roll numbers of the candidates, their names, the details relating to the category/ classification and the written test marks as also interview marks out of 100 each. The details of the total marks have also been furnished and wherever relaxation has been accorded the same was also found noticed by adding such marks given on account of relaxation. The name of the first petitioner figures at serial No. 51 and that of petitioners 2 to 5 figure at serial Nos. 63, 64, 71 and 61 respectively. The required minimum marks for any one to be considered eligible for being selected is 40 per cent. We find that the petitioners have been given four marks each by virtue of the relaxation of 10 per cent and inspite of such benefit of relaxation having been given, petitioners 1 to 5 could secure only places at 107, 103, 103, 99 and 104, respectively. But at the same time it could be seen that in the merit list of candidates so prepared as referred to above, meritwise, the last candidate who has been selected was one who has secured 107.5 and inasmuch as none of the petitioners have secured such marks the question of their being considered otherwise than against the ratio of the reserved posts, purely on the basis of merit as against general category does not arise. The question, therefore, is as to whether the petitioners claims were duly and properly considered as against the 16 posts reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category for the said year, as indicated earlier.
14. The learned counsel for the respondent-Bank strenuously contended that, as per the policy of the Bank, disclosed in the Brochure on Reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Posts/ Services in Public Sector Banks/Financial Institutions under the Control of the Ministry of Finance (Banking Division) in promotion by selection the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates selected on their own merits as per the general standard will also be counted against their reserved quota and if the Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes candidates who qualify as per the general standard are more than the vacancies reserved for them, then only the excess will be appointed against unreserved posts on the basis of their own merits, as per the general candidates and even in such cases, the excess appointment of SC/ST will not be adjusted against future reservations for them, though SC/ST candidates selected on the basis of relaxed standards would not be appointed against posts to be filled by the general candidates. The stand so taken, based upon Departmental Circular Orders relating to the manner and method of implementation of the reservation policy in favour of the SC/ST, not only appears to be arbitrary, unreasonable and opposed to the law declared by their Lordships of the Apex Court if allowed to be followed or countenanced by Courts would defeat the purpose and object of the policy of reservation and the constitutional mandate, as carried out by the Presidential Orders pertaining to reservations. It is settled law that if a Dalit or Tribe candidate gets selected for admission to a course or appointment to a post on the basis of merit as general candidate, he should not be treated as reserved candidate. Only one who does get selection for admission or appointment by virtue of relaxation of eligibility criteria should be treated as reserved candidate.
15. Therefore, it becomes necessary for us to consider as to whether the 15 posts admittedly reserved for ST candidates for the selection made for promotion to Officers JMG-I with effect from August 1, 1992, were properly filled up and the manner and method of filling up those vacancies adopted by the respondent-Bank could be said to be in accordance with law. As a matter of fact the stand taken for the respondent-Bank, based on the circular orders, is that in promotion by selection the selection of SC/ST candidates selected even on their own merit as per general standard and will be counted against their quota and though this may not be legal but this appears to have been not what really has happened, at any rate in this case, since, the taking into account of all 15 ST candidates who have been selected in all for appointment, as against the reserved posts of 15 for the year, seems to be alright. The proceedings dated March 20, 1993 drawn and placed before the Chief General Manager and General Manager (Operations) as well as the General Manager (Planning) after written test, results were analysed and before calling candidates for interview, would go to show that the reserved candidates got through the written examination after relaxation in service standards. It is found specifically stated therein as follows:
"5. In view of the above, we have prepared a merit list of all (including SC/ST) candidates (Flag-A). Since, sufficient number of SC/ST candidates appeared in the merit list (25 General + 53 SC/ST) upto our requirement, we do not have to give relaxation in the qualifying marks."
16. The merit list of selected candidates qualified for promotion and prepared after an analysis of the written test and interview marks disclose that out of the 15 candidates of ST category selected J.S. Chauhan (Serial No. 4), Sukh Ram Bodh (Serial No. 8), Bhavinder Singh (Serial No. 17), Gian Sagar Negi (Serial No. 24), Hoshiar Chand Thakur (Serial No. 27) and H. S. Negi (Serial No. 29) have passed the written test and got the required marks in the interview for being selected along with other category candidates without any relaxation in the eligibility marks as such the rest of the 5 candidates had to be given 4 marks each by applying relaxation standards to enable them to get the required yanking for being selected in competition with others. At the same time, what is claimed for the respondent-Bank both at the time of hearing and the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the Bank on May 24, 1999 is that all the 15 candidates belonging to ST category who were successful for promotion to officer JMGS-I became eligible for promotion to JMGS-I with effect from August 1, 1992 only after giving them relaxation in service standards and norms in relation to General Cadre Employees. In support of the stand so taken reliance is placed upon the circular special letter No. CSL/Per/48 dated February 18, 1993 filed as Annexure-RX2, wherein it is found stated that the candidates who could undertake the written test must have got confirmed in service on January 15, 1978 if they belong to general cadre, on December 31, 1978 if they belong to SC category and July 31, 1987 if they belong to ST category. Consequently, it is contended that all the 15 ST candidates selected for promotion must be considered to have got selected after relaxation of service norms and, therefore, they have to be necessarily adjusted against reserved vacancies of 15 for the ST category for the selection period in question.
17. On our directions, Mr. K.D. Sood, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has filed a statement containing the following details with reference to the recruitment year as also the length of service fixed for general category and reserved category and the relaxation accorded during the course of each year with reference to the service norms due to dearth of required number of candidates in the reserved category to undertake written examination and thereby participate in the process of selection for promotion:
"The length of service is determined depending upon the number of vacancies to satisfy the ratio of 1:3 for 1988 and 1:5 for 1992 onwards and relaxation to SC/ST candidates was granted as detailed in para 10 of our reply for different requirement years as under:-
Years Length of Service Fixed for Relaxation of Gen. Yrs Category Mills Days SC Yrs.
Category Mths Days SC/ST Yrs.
Mths Days 1979 6 7 12 5 7 12 1
-
-1980 7 2 16 6 2 16 1
-
-1981 7
-
-6
-
-1
-
-1982 7 11
-6 11
-1
-
-1983 7 6
-6 6
-1
-
-1984 9 11 1 7 11 1 1
-
-1988 10 8 15 9 9
-0 11
-1992 14 6 8 5
-
-9 6 8
(for ST only)"
18. The said details furnished go to show that relaxation was accorded in respect of the service norms even to the 15 candidates relating to ST category upon which only they could undertake written examination and get through in the selection also after the viva voce, of course by obtaining required marks, a few even without relaxation of qualifying marks and some others with relaxation in qualifying marks also. In the light of the above and having regard to the well settled principles laid down by the Apex Court, the entire number of 15 ST candidates who were selected for promotion have to be and has been in our view rightly adjusted against the reserved vacancies of 15 ST category. If that be the position, the petitioners who could not come upto the required standards fixed for selection vis-a-vis number of vacancies available and to be filled up for the year 1992 with effect from August 1, 1992, no relief whatsoever can be granted to the petitioners in this writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition fails and shall stand dismissed. But, in the matter of according relaxation in the service norms since we have pointed out the error committed by the respondent-Bank they should ensure atleast that such errors are not committed by repeating the same mistakes to the detriment of the reserved candidates. Equally so in respect of the method of adjusting of reserved vacancies in future which should be as indicated in our order the same being the correct position of law to be applied. No costs.
CMP No. 1656/1998.
Allowed. The policy is taken on record.