Patna High Court - Orders
Bipin Krishna Singh vs The State Bank Of India & Ors on 16 August, 2012
Author: Shiva Kirti Singh
Bench: Shiva Kirti Singh, Vikash Jain
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1000 of 2012
======================================================
BIPIN KRISHNA SINGH SON OF DR. RAM JI SINGH RESIDENT OF
RADHA RANI SINHA ROAD, POLICE STATION KOTWALI,
DISTRICT BHAGALPUR AT THE TIME OF FILING WRIT
APPLICATION POSTED AS CHIEF MANAGER (SENIOR
MANAGEMENT GRADE SCALE IV) STATE BANK OF INDIA
SOUNDA, DISTRICT HAZARIBAGH, PATNA CIRCLE, AT PRESENT
POSTED AS CHIEF MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA C.C.P.C.
PATNA
.... .... APPELLANT/S
VERSUS
1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA , THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN
STATE BANK OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE, MADAME CAMA
ROAD, BACKWAY RECLAMATION, MUMBAI
2. THE DEPUTY MANAGING DIRECTOR - CUM - CORPORATE
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL OFFICE, MADAME
CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI - 21
3. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA
LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, JUDGES COURT ROAD, PATNA
4. THE GENERAL MANAGER (DEVELOPMENT AND PERSONAL
BANKING) STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE,
JUDGES COURT ROAD, PATNA
5. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA
ZONAL OFFICE, BEATSON ROAD, KHANJARPUR, BHAGALPUR
6. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, REGION-I, STATE BANK
OF INDIA ZONAL OFFICE, BEATSON ROAD, KHANJARPUR,
BHAGALPUR
7. SRI S.A. FAROOQUI SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER RESTWHILE GENERAL MANAGER (D & PB) STATE
BANK OF INDIA LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, PATNA, AT THE TIME OF
FILING OF WRIT APPLICATION POSTED AS CHIEF GENERAL
MANAGER, MANAGEMENT AUDIT STATE BANK OF INDIA
CENTRAL OFFICE, MADAME CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI (NOW
RETIRED)
8. SRI KANAK PRASAD ROY SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF
INDIA ZONAL OFFICE BHAGALPUR (NOW RETIRED)
9. SRI A.K. GHOSH DASTIDAR, THE THEN A.G.M. REGION-I STATE
BANK OF INDIA ZONAL OFFICE KHANJARPURA BEATSON ROAD,
BHAGALPUR AT THE TIME OF FILING WRIT APPLICATION
POSTED AS AGM REGION III STATE BANK OF INDIA ZONAL
OFFICE BHAGALPUR (NOW RETIRED)
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Aditya Narain Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.D.Sanjay,
Patna High Court LPA No.1000 of 2012 (4) dt.16-08-2012 2
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH)
4 16-08-2012Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order under appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that non-promotion of the petitioner from Scale IV to Scale V of the State Bank of India suffers from illegality because reasons for not granting him promotion was not disclosed to him so that he could improve himself. In support of the aforesaid stand learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in the case of Dev Dutt vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725.
3. The learned Writ Court has considered the relevant materials and has held that since the appellant came under the zone of consideration in November, 1998, his case along with others was considered since 1999. The marks obtained by the appellant/writ petitioner are also recorded in the order of the Writ Court along with cut off marks for grant of promotion on the basis of merit. In such a situation the Writ Court has held that the judgment in the case of Dev Dutt (supra) is of no application and no illegality was found with the process of granting promotion to others and not granting merit promotion to the appellant because he had obtained marks in the interview below the cut off marks. We find no good reason to take a different view. The appeal is dismissed.
4. We have been informed that subsequently the order of Writ Court was modified so as to revise the word "interview" as Patna High Court LPA No.1000 of 2012 (4) dt.16-08-2012 3 "assessment". In that view of the matter it is clarified that minimum marks and marks obtained by the appellant was on account of assessment and not on the basis of interview.
(Shiva Kirti Singh, J)
Chandran (Vikash Jain, J)