Karnataka High Court
Sri.Chandrashekhar vs The Chairman State Bank Of India & Ors on 7 March, 2018
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
W.P.No.203652/2017 (S-PRO)
Between:
Chandrashekhar
S/o Hanmanth Banasode
Age: 49 years
Occ: Deputy Branch Manager
State Bank of India
Main Branch
HKCC Building
Super Market, Kalaburagi
... Petitioner
(By Sri Chandrashekhar H. Banasode, Party-in-person)
And:
1. The Chairman
State Bank of India
State Bank Bhavan
Corporate Centre
Madame Cama Road
Mumbai - 400021
2. The Chief General Manager
State Bank of India
Bengaluru Circle
Local Head Office
No.65, St. Mark's Road
Bengaluru - 560 001
2
3. Assistant General Manager (HR)
State Bank of India
Bengaluru Circle
Local Head Office
No.65, St. Mark's Road
Bengaluru - 560 001
4. S.K. Ramesh
Ex-Deputy General Manager
E- State Bank of Hyderabad
Zonal Office, Super Market
Kalaburagi - 585 101
5. The Chairman
Interview Committee for
Scale-III to Scale-IV
State Bank of India
Bengaluru Circle
Local Head Office
No.65, St. Mark's Road
Bengaluru - 560 001
6. Deputy General Manager (B & O)
(E-State Bank of Hyderabad)
State Bank of India
Administrative Office-VII
Zonal Office, Super Market
Kalaburagi - 585 101
... Respondents
(By Sri Manvendra Reddy, Advocate for R2 to R6;
Sri Nagaraj Patil, Advocate for R4 - Absent;
R-1 Served as per postal report)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of
mandamus to SBI Management i.e., to the Chairman, State
Bank of India, Corporate Office, Mumbai, to stay the process
3
of interview which starts from 31.07.2017 i.e., Monday vide
Annexure-F and to include the petitioner's name in the
interview list which starts from Monday i.e., 31st July 2017.
This petition is coming on for Orders this day, the
Court made the following:-
ORDER
The petitioner, a officer in State Bank of India, has come up in this petition seeking relief of stalling the process of interview for considering promotion of eligible candidates from the post of MMGS-III (Middle Management Grade Scale-III) to SMGS-IV (Senior Management Grade Scale-IV). According to him, he has entered the service of State Bank of Hyderabad on 01.09.1988 as Cashier Clerk at Bhalki Branch, Bidar District. Subsequently, on merger of State Bank of Hyderabad with State Bank of India on 01.04.2017, he has become employee of the first respondent-State Bank of India. His qualification is Executive-MBA (Finance) from Kuvempu University; degree of Master in Human Resource Management from Kuvempu University; 4 Certificate course in KYC and AML from IIBF, Mumbai; Certificate course in Prevention of Cyber Crimes and Fraud Management from IIBFF, Mumbai; and Certificate course in Banking Codes and Standards (BCSBI) from IIBF, Mumbai. He would claim that he has vast experience; that he was initially promoted as Assistant Manager in the month of December 2002; thereafter, as Deputy Manager (MMGS-II) in the month of December 2006; subsequently as Manager (MMGS-III) in the month of November 2012. According to him, he has required qualification and merit to be considered for the post of SMGS-IV.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Nos.1 to 6 are conducting interview for promoting the officers from MMGS-III to SMGS-IV. In that behalf, interview is scheduled to be held on 31.07.2017. According to him, though he is sufficiently qualified and having vast experience in working as 5 Officer of MMGS-III for a period of five years from 2012 with additional certificate courses to his credit besides qualification of MBA and other academic qualification, he is not considered for interview to said post. Since he is not included in the list of candidate selected for the interview to the said post, he has approached this Court seeking mandamus to State Bank of India i.e., respondent No.1-Chairman, State Bank of India, to stay the process of interview which would start from 31.07.2017. In this writ petition, he has also sought for interim prayer of similar nature and with additional interim prayer to include his name in the list of candidates selected for the interview.
3. When this matter had come up before this Court on 28.07.2017, after hearing the petitioner as party-in-person for some time, this Court felt his name should be considered for interview to be conducted on 31.07.2017. However, the Court felt that the result of 6 the interview shall be subject to final outcome of this writ petition. Accordingly, he was provided an opportunity to appear in the interview which was conducted on 31.07.2017. Thereafter, this writ petition had come up before this Court for final disposal on 06.03.2018, on which date, this Court directed the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 6 to furnish the particulars regarding number of post of SMGS-IV for which interview is conducted and also the number of candidates called for interview. He was also directed to secure the list of seniority showing the place where the petitioner is located in the said seniority list and to produce the same before this Court.
4. Accordingly, this day, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 6 produced a sealed cover containing the list of the officers under the zone for consideration to SMGS-IV for the year 2017-18. The list which is prepared by the State Bank of India, Human 7 Resource Department, Local Head Office, Bengaluru, is furnished in the sealed cover which is opened in the Court in the presence of petitioner, party-in-person and the officer who produced the same before this Court pursuant to the oral direction issued to the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 6. This Court received the cover from Mr. Shani Swatantra, Deputy Manager, HR Department, LHO, Bengaluru, who is deputed to deliver this cover from Bengaluru, who is accompanied by another two persons viz., Mr. Babu Rajendra Joshi, Chief Manager (HR), Administrative Office-8, State Bank of India, Super Market, Kalaburagi, and Mr. Prabhakar B., Deputy Manager (LAW), State Bank of India, AO-8, Kalaburagi.
5. The said cover is opened and the seniority list is looked into, it contains 407 names in all, who are Officers under the zone of consideration for promotion from MMGS-III to SMGS-IV. In the said list, name of 8 the petitioner is at Sl.No.385 with his PF No.6293697 where the Performance Appraisal Format marks provided to him shown at column No.9 is 58.50. When the said list is looked into, including the petitioner 270 persons are called for interview i.e., at the rate of 1:2 for selecting 135 officers for promotion to the post of SMGS-IV. The Performance Appraisal Format marks of the last of the officer at Sl.No.269 is 63.50. From Sl.No.269 to Sl.No.385, there are several other persons none of them are called for interview, thereby clearly indicating that the candidature for interview is considered on the basis of Performance Appraisal Format marks provided to each of the officers who are presently working in the cadre of MMGS-III who are under the zone of consideration for promotion to SMGS- IV.
6. When the same is looked into, there is nothing which would indicate that the petitioner herein is over- 9 looked while calling the candidates to interview for the post of SMGS-IV. The qualification and experience of the petitioner as shown in the petition would not automatically bring him to the zone of consideration unless his performance is recognized by the bank in the manner known to the procedure which is followed in the said bank as could be seen from the list prepared with reference to officers under the zone of consideration.
7. Therefore, this Court would find that the present petition which is filed seeking inclusion of petitioner's name for interview is without any merit and there is nothing on record to show that he is over- looked in any manner. However, if the petitioner is of the opinion that the marks which is assigned to him under the Performance Appraisal Format is inaccurate, then, it is open for him to challenge the same before the appropriate authority, where the authority may decide after looking into the material placed by him to show 10 whether the marks which is provided to him under the said test is adequate or otherwise. Until the same is decided, the question of either taking him into the zone of consideration or bringing in seniority from Sl.No.385 to zone of consideration does not arise in this petition.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed holding that no irregularity is found in calling the candidates for the interview for promotion to the post of SMGS-IV.
9. While dismissing this writ petition, respondent No.1 is directed to complete the process of promotion of eligible candidates in the consideration zone, in accordance with seniority without considering the candidature of the petitioner who was given an opportunity to appear for the interview on 31.07.2017.
Sd/-
JUDGE NB* Ct: RRJ