Karnataka High Court
J K Suresh vs Chikmagalur Kodagu Grameena Bank on 18 June, 2024
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.35881 OF 2012 (S-PRO)
BETWEEN:
J.K.SURESH
S/O J.C.KALLATHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
WORKING MANAGER
CHIKMAGALUR - KODAGU
GRAMEENA BANK
BIRUR - 577 116
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NAGENDRA NAIK R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CHIKMAGALUR - KODAGU GRAMEENA
BANK, A BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF REGIONAL RURAL
BANKS ACT, 1976 HAVING ITS HEAD
OFFICE AT CHIKMAGALUR - 577 101
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
2. KAVERI GRAMEENA BANK
HEAD OFFICE, CA - 20
VIJAYANAGARA II STAGE
MYSORE - 570017
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.SACHINDRA KARANTH, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER BEARING
NO.HOR:PRN:DISC:028:2011-12 DATED 11TH MAY 2012 UNDER
ANNEXURE-V TO THE WP PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT/BANK BY
ISSUE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND DIRECT THE
-2-
RESPONDENT/BANK BY ISSUE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
MANDAMUS TO PROMOTE THE PETITIONER TO THE CADRES OF
MIDDLE MANAGEMENT GRADE SCALE-II & MIDDLE MANAGEMENT
GRADE SCALE-III FROM THE DATE HIS JUNIORS WERE PROMOTED
TO THE SAID SCALES AND GRANT ALL SUCH BENEFITS FLOWING
FROM SUCH ORDERS AND REGULATE THE CONDITIONS OF SERVICE
OF THE PETITIONER ACCORDINGLY AND ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 14.06.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed assailing the order dated 11.05.2012 passed by the respondent-Bank thereby rejecting petitioner's representation to consider him for promotion.
2. The facts leading to the case are as under:
The petitioner joined the services of respondent-Bank as an officer by direct recruitment in 1985. The Bank issued a Circular initiating promotion process for filling up one vacancy in the cadre of Middle Management Grade Scale-II by promotion from the cadre of Junior Management Grade Scale-I. Petitioner's grievance is that though he was interviewed, one P.S.Hegde, an officer -3- junior in rank to petitioner was promoted to Middle Management Grade Scale-II. Petitioner contends that the promotion within the Bank's Middle Management Grade Scale-II should be primarily based on seniority. Petitioner citing various legal precedents laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court contends that the rejection of representation of petitioner runs contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sivaiah vs. K.Addanki Babu1 and the judgment rendered in the case of Union of India vs. Lt.Gen. Rajendra Singh Kadyan2.
3. Petitioner referring to these judgments, would point out that respondent-Bank's rules clearly contemplates that eligible candidates possessing minimum necessary merit in the feeder post are to be promoted strictly in accordance with seniority from among those who possess minimum necessary merit. Therefore, the petitioner's contention is that where promotion is on the basis of seniority alone, merit will not play any part at all. 1 (1998) 6 SCC 720 2 (2000) 6 SCC 698 -4- The petitioner therefore contends that minimum merit necessary for the post should necessarily be assessed either by subjecting the candidates to written examination or an interview or by assessment of their work performance during the previous years. On principle of seniority-cum-merit, petitioner contends that he could not have been denied promotion by any stretch of imagination. Petitioner claims that promotion has to be necessarily met strictly in terms of seniority.
4. Per contra, respondent-Bank has contested the petition and have stoutly denied the claim made by the petitioner. The respondent-Bank on the contrary contends that in terms of promotion policy, petitioner's performance for the preceding 3 years was assessed by the committee comprising of three experts and he was subjected to interview. In the year 1995 under the promotion policy, an officer who is in the zone of consideration for promotion has to obtain a minimum of 30 marks out of 45 in performance appraisal as is evident in Annexure-R1. The respondent-Bank claimed that petitioner has secured only -5- 21.01 marks in performance appraisal. Similarly, for the year 1998, the promotion policy mandated that officer should obtain a minimum of 35 out of 70 in the performance appraisal. Petitioner has obtained 28.44 in performance appraisal and 12 marks in interview. Similarly, in the year 2000, an officer claiming promotion should obtain a minimum of 35 marks out of 70 in performance appraisal and 50 marks combined aggregate of performance appraisal and interview. The petitioner obtained 40.25 in performance appraisal and 8.5 marks in interview. Therefore, petitioner has, in all, obtained 48.75 as against minimum qualifying marks of 50 which is evident from Annexure-R2. Similarly, in 2002, an officer was required to obtain minimum of 40% marks in performance appraisal in the previous 5 years and 50 marks total in performance appraisal and interview. Petitioner has obtained 48.81, which is combined marks. The petitioner has in fact secured 32 in test performance, 10.80 in performance appraisal and 6 marks in interview. Petitioner therefore obtained 48.75 as against minimum -6- qualifying marks of 50. On these set of grounds, the Bank has sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-Bank.
6. Though petitioner has contended that the promotion is denied contrary to Rules, this Court has taken cognizance of the promotion policy which is placed on record along with statement of objections. It is evident from the records that Bank's promotion policy incorporates a balanced approach, consisting both seniority and performance. The assessment criteria encompass various aspects relating to petitioner's role including banking knowledge, communication skills and professional expertise.
7. The present matter pertains to dispute surrounding the promotion of the petitioner who asserts that he is wrongfully denied promotion ignoring his seniority. This contention is premised on the belief that promotion within the Bank's Middle Management Grade -7- Scale-II should primarily be based on seniority alone with merit playing a secondary role. Petitioner of course has invoked various legal precedents laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sivaiah vs. K.Addanki Babu and Union of India vs. Lt.Gen.Rajendra Singh Kadyan (supra).
8. Petitioner's contention that promotion has to be based solely on seniority and the same supersedes the requirement for additional merit assessment is totally misconceived. While taking cognizance of the records more particularly, the promotion policy, this Court has noticed that though it is essential to recognize that seniority is undoubtedly a crucial factor in promotion decision, however, the promotion policy promulgated by respondent-Bank operates within the framework that also consists other vital aspects such as merit and performance.
9. Upon careful examination of the arguments presented by both the petitioner and respondent-Bank as -8- well as on thorough review of relevant rules and records, this Court finds that respondent-Bank have diligently followed its prescribed procedure in assessing petitioner's eligibility for promotion.
10. The Bank's contention supported by evidence indicates that the committee was duly constituted to evaluate the petitioner's performance and conduct an interview as per the stipulated rules. Notably, the petitioner's performance in the interview coupled with his performance appraisal in the preceding 3 years fall significantly below the minimum qualifying marks required for promotion. The details are furnished in the written synopsis and there is no counter to these materials placed on record by the petitioner. The petitioner's over-all score is found to be below the qualifying marks and therefore, it underscores his inability to meet the stipulated criteria for promotion.
11. The records also reveal that the initial consideration based on seniority is in fact accomplished by -9- the respondent-Bank. It is in fact based on seniority, petitioner is considered for performance appraisal and he has appeared before the committee and is subjected to interview. Therefore, what can be gathered is that respondent-Bank's promotion policy encompass a holistic approach that consists both seniority and merit. The respondent's contention in this regard is supported by Bank's established procedure as per Annexures-R1 and R2 which contemplates a comprehensive evaluation process involving performance assessment and interviews.
12. While seniority is indeed a crucial factor, the policy also takes into account the merit and performance of the candidates. The petitioner's performance in the interviews and appraisals was significantly below the minimum qualifying marks required for promotion. The records indicate that the Bank's promotion policy involves a holistic approach that includes both seniority and merit.
13. The Court acknowledges that the petitioner was considered for promotion based on his seniority, which
- 10 -
allowed him to be appraised and interviewed. However, his overall score did not meet the qualifying criteria for promotion. The promotion committee, which was duly constituted and included independent members from NABARD, the sponsoring Bank, RBI, and the SC/ST commission, conducted the assessments. There is no evidence of bias against the petitioner, and the rejection of his promotion was based on established procedures and criteria.
14. The petitioner was given a fair opportunity to demonstrate his suitability for promotion in an interview and performance assessment conducted by a duly constituted committee. The alleged bias by petitioner also is not substantiated by any concrete evidence. On the contrary, it is borne out from the records that the committee to assess an officers eligibility for promotion comprises a nominee from NABARD, General manager of sponsorer Bank, a nominee from RBI and a nominee from SC/ST commission. Therefore, it is clearly evident that a committee comprises of independent individuals and
- 11 -
therefore, the sealed cover procedure adopted against the petitioner and the penalty inflicted by the Disciplinary Authority which was set aside by this Court and the sealed cover was opened by the committee clearly demonstrate that rejection of petitioner's representation is not at all biased. On the contrary, the petitioner's failure to meet the minimum criteria for promotion is determined by the Bank's established rules and procedure and render his claim untenable.
15. Therefore, there is no merit in the petitioner's claim and the respondent-Bank's decision to deny promotion to the petitioner based on his failure to attain the requisite qualifying marks is upheld. Consequently, petitioner's plea for indulgence cannot be granted in absence of sufficient grounds to justify overturning the Bank's decision.
16. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
- 12 -
ORDER The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed.
Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE CA