Jharkhand High Court
Iti Rani Sarkar vs State Bank Of India (S.B.I.) on 9 July, 2024
Author: Ambuj Nath
Bench: Ambuj Nath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 308 of 2017
------
Iti Rani Sarkar ... ... Petitioner
-Versus -
1. State Bank of India (S.B.I.), Local Head Office, Patna, Bihar
2. The Chief General Manager, S.B.I., Local Head Office, Patna, Bihar
3. The General Manager (NW-II) & Promoting Authority, S.B.I., Patna
4. The Assistant General Manager, Region-I, Zonal Office, Ranchi ... ... Respondents
------
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
------
08/09.07.2024
Heard the parties.
Petitioner, Iti Rani Sarkar has filed this writ petition for quashing of order dated 26.02.2016, passed by Respondent no. 3, The General Manager (NW-II) & Promoting Authority, S.B.I. West Gandhi Maidan, Patna-800001 whereby and wherein the promotion of the petitioner in MMGS-II, MMGS- IV & SMGS-IV was not considered with retrospective effect i.e. from year 2004-05, 2006 & 2010 respectively, with further direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner in MMGS-II with effect from 2004, MMGS-III with effect from 2006 and SMGS-IV with effect from 2010.
The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as a clerk-cum- cashier in State Bank of India in the year 1989. Petitioner was promoted as Trainee Officer with effect from August 1998 alongwith other staff members. The other staff members who were promoted in the year 1998 alongwith petitioner were given scale-II in the year 2004 but the petitioner was not given this financial up-gradation as a proceeding was pending against her. Subsequently, similarly situated employees promoted as Trainee Officers were given fast track promotion on 31.03.2005 but the petitioner was deprived of being promoted due to the aforesaid proceedings pending against her.
It appears that the petitioner was selling products of AMWAY, which was found to be non-becoming of a bank staff for which the proceeding was initiated. She was found guilty and was punished with down grading of reduction by three stages. Due to the pendency of the department proceeding and subsequent punishment, the petitioner could not get promotion in the year 2004 in MMGS-II, MMGS-III in the year 2006 and SMGS-IV in the year 2010. Subsequently, petitioner moved against the punishment in the departmental proceeding before this Court and the punishment rendered to her in the department proceeding was quashed by order dated 10.01.2012 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6973 of 2005 by learned Single Bench of this Court. The respondents appealed against the order of the learned Single Judge vide L.P.A No. 275 of 2012 but their appeal was dismissed by Division Bench of this Court on 30.10.2012. Subsequently, as the findings of the departmental proceeding holding her guilty and subsequent punishment was quashed, she made a representation before the respondents to give her financial up-gradation.
It appears that initially no order was passed and subsequently petitioner again moved this Court vide W.P.(S) No. 3021 of 2013 and a Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.10.2015 directed the respondents to consider her case for financial upgradation. The respondents after considering her case did not find her eligible for promotion as claimed in the representation. Accordingly, her representation was rejected.
Mr. Sidhartha Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner could not appear in the examination in order to become eligible for consideration of financial upgradation because she was facing inquiry and as per the Rules of promotion for executive selection system, any officer who was under punishment on the date of eligibility due to imposition of penalty, as a result of disciplinary actions was not permitted to participate in the promotion process. It was further submitted that the respondents in their counter affidavit have specifically stated that the case of the petitioner was not considered as a departmental proceeding was pending against her. But now, respondents have taken a plea that petitioner was not eligible for promotion for financial upgradation in the year 2004-05 under normal channel because she had not completed six years of service and her case was not considered in fast track channel because she could not get requisites for Performance Appraisal Format (P.A.F), because she could not get the required marks of 67.42 under Fast Track Channel P.A.F which was minimum criteria for consideration under Fast Track Channel but she had secured only 32.96 marks.
Question has been raised that the respondents have arbitrarily given 32.496 P.A.F to the petitioner so that her case won't be considered under Fast Track Channel. It was further submitted that P.A.F of 32.96 was given to her on the basis of the A.A.R.F + P.A.F for the year 2008-09 instead of 2004-05. Accordingly, the petitioner should be given financial upgradation as prayed for. It was finally submitted that Annexure-9 which is a circular issued by Deputy Managing Director & Corporate Development Officer directing all the local head officers of State Bank of India regarding the criteria for which A.A.R.F and P.A.F should be considered. Attention has been drawn for promotion year 2003-04 up to 2006-07 cut-off for relevant backdated year, under the channel (Normal/ Fast track) for which the candidate is being considered for backdated promotion.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the petitioner made a representation before the respondents on 20.03.2013 for back dated promotion which is Annexure- 4 to this writ petition. It was further submitted that the petitioner in the year 2003-04 was not eligible for promotion in M.M.G.S-II under normal channel as she had not completed six years as officer cadre as on 01.04.2004. It was further submitted that the case of the petitioner was not considered for Fast Track Channel for promotion due to non-securing of minimum A.A.R.F score of 90 during the last year preceding 2000. It was further submitted that the cut-off marks for inclusion in Zone of Selection (ZOS) in P.Y (Promotion Year) 2004-05 was 67.42 under Fast Track Channel. In the case of the petitioner after considering her P.A.F of P.Y 2004-05 and written marks of the year 2008-09, it was the total marks secured in written test was 20.33 and P.Y. was 32.96 and she secured total 53.29 marks, which was below 67.42 for her consideration under Fast Track Channel.
From the facts emanating from the pleadings of the parties and submissions made above, it is evident that the representation of the petitioner was rejected because she could not secure the minimum marks of 67.42 under Fast Track Channel on the basis of marks secured in the written test and P.A.F. It has been agitated that total A.A.R.F given to the petitioner which was 53.29 on the basis of P.A.F and marks secured in the written test is wholly arbitrary because marks which was given in the written test was for the year 2008-09 whereas the average marking could have been given to the petitioner for the year 2004-05 as she could not take the exam and it has further been agitated that because a circular (Annexure-9) is silent as to what marks obtained by an officer in which year shall be taken into consideration. It further appears that for the P.Y. 2005-06, the petitioner had secured 24.50 marks (out of 75) which was less than the minimum qualifying marks i.e. 37.50 to be considered for inclusion in Zone of Selection. It was also submitted that she had not taken the exam as stated by the respondents and imaginary marks have been given. At this point, it was submitted by Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel on behalf of the respondents that for promotion year 2006, the cut-off marks which the petitioner has obtained in the year 2008 was considered.
Learned counsel for the respondent is directed to file supplementary counter affidavit explaining the discrepancies in the marks secured in the written test for the promotion of the year 2004-05 and promotion year 2006- 07 as it is their stand that this mark was taken on the basis of the marks secured by her in the examination which was taken for 2008 itself. Same should be file with four weeks.
List this writ petition after four weeks.
(Ambuj Nath, J.) Nandini/Rahul/-