Karnataka High Court
Sri U Vijaya Shankar Shenoy vs State Bank Of India on 12 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.55373 OF 2013 (S-PRO)
BETWEEN:
SRI U VIJAYA SHANKAR SHENOY
S/O U NARASIMHA SHENOY
AGED 53 YEARS
R/A NO. 218, 1ST FLOOR
II E CROSS, 8TH MAIN
III BLOCK, III STAGE
BASAVESWARANAGAR
BANGALORE-79
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI AMARESH N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BANK OF INDIA
LEGAL HEAD OFFICE,
REP BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,
HGS, ST.MARKS ROAD,
BENGALURU-01
(AMENDED CARRIED OUT V/O DTD:
17.04.2018)
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SRIBHOOMI YESHAWININ, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. K SHUBHA ANANTHI, ADVOCATE)
2
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
PERTAINING TO THE SELECTION UNDER THE NOTIFICATION /
STAFF CIRCULAR NO.01/2013-14 DATED 2.4.2013 AND ON
PERUSAL HOLD AND DECLARE THAT NON SELECTION OF THE
PETITIONER FOR EFFECTING THE PROMOTION FROM CLERICAL
CADRE TO JMGS-1 UNDER GROUP-D CATEGORY IS ARBITRARY,
DISCRIMINATORY AND BAD IN LAW AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 09.02.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged his non-selection for promotion from clerical cadre to JMGS-I under Group 'D' category.
2. The facts leading to the case are as under:
The respondent-Bank invited applications to effect promotion from clerical cadre to Junior Management Grade Scale I during 2012. Petitioner was permitted to participate in the written test and interview under Group 'D' category which prescribed 10 marks for performance appraisal, 5 marks for seniority, 4 marks for JAIIB, 6 marks for CAIIB and 75 marks for interview. The petitioner applied and appeared for 3 interview. Petitioners grievance before this Court is that inspite of better educational qualification and he being a senior most in the clerical cadre who worked in junior management cadre for a period of 8 long years before he was demoted is denied promotion though he possessed eligibility criteria.
3. Petitioner in the captioned petition has also questioned the prescription of 75 marks for interview. Petitioner would contend that reserving 75 marks in interview gives unbridled right to the selection committee and therefore, the very prescription of 75 marks in interview is called in question on the ground that it is bad and illegal.
4. Per contra, the respondent-Bank, on receipt of summons, has filed statement of objections and has countered the petitioner's claim. Respondent on the contrary contended that petitioner was found to be ineligible for promotion and in interview, his performance was not upto desired quotient. The object of interviewing the candidates is intended to take 4 cognizance of integrity, previous antecedents and satisfactory work done at previous branches. The respondent/Bank has also contended that as per the promotion policy in Group 'D', out of 100 marks, 75 marks is allotted for personal interview. Pursuant to direction issued by this Court, the respondent/Bank has also placed on record the departmental promotion committee report pertaining to petitioner which contains minutes of interview committee meeting held on 16.07.2013.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank. Perused the records placed on record by the respondent-Bank. I have also given my anxious consideration to the list of authorities relied by the counsel for respondent-Bank.
6. On examination of the promotion policy for Group 'D' employees, it is clearly evident that the promotion from clerical cadre to officer cadre under Group 'D' is based on 5 merit cum seniority. While assessing the merit of the candidates by conducting oral interview, the performance of the candidates during previous years is assessed by the committee. Therefore, the promotion policy in the present case on hand clearly gives an indication that more emphasis is on merit than seniority and only those candidates who have secured 40 marks are considered for promotion from clerical cadre to officer cadre. If promotion is based on minimum necessary merit and if such minimum merit is assessed by conducting an interview to make an assessment of their work performance during previous years or by combination by either two or all the three of the work performances, minimum necessary merit of securing 40 marks being a basic requirement, cannot be assumed to be arbitrary or illegal.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the departmental promotion committee report. The respondent- Bank has not only placed on record the marks assigned to petitioner, but has furnished the full list of candidates who had 6 appeared for the interview. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, similarly placed employees of respondent-Bank had failed to cross 40 minimum marks. The contention of petitioner that the committee has consciously and deliberately assigned 24 marks in oral interview is not substantiated in the present writ petition. In the entire petition, there are no specific averments indicating that the selection committee is biased or had arbitrarily awarded lesser marks. Thus, it is clear that a process whereby eligible candidates possessing minimum necessary merit in the feeder posts is first ascertained and thereafter promotions are made, no indulgence can be granted in the present case on hand.
8. The relief of declaration sought by the petitioner assailing the prescription of 75 marks by way of oral interview also cannot be entertained. It is settled law that a person having consciously participated in interview cannot turn around and challenge the selection process. The Apex Court 7 analysed a catena of judgments including Ashok Kumar vs. State of Bihar1 to stress that, "it is therefore trite that candidates having taken part in the selection process without any demur or protest, cannot challenge the same after having been declared unsuccessful. Regarding the contention of marks being granted in an arbitrary manner during interview, the allocation of marks in an interview by the committee being arbitrary is not substantiated. The material on record clearly reveals that respondent-Bank ignoring the previous antecedents of petitioner has in fact recommended for promotion.
9. For the reasons stated supra, no valid grounds are made out which would warrant indulgence at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly stands dismissed.
1 (2017) 4 SCC 357 8 The pending interlocutory application, if any, does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE CA