Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: SC/ST association in Madras Refineries Sc/St Employees vs The General Manager (Hr) on 23 February, 2010Matching Fragments
5. Heard the arguments of Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.R.Parthiban for the petitioner and Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.R.Senthil Kumar of M/s.Dua Associates.
6. The sheet anchor of the petitioner- Association in filing the writ petition was on the basis of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in All India Union Bank of India SC/ST Employees Association v. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,Union Bank of India and others in W.A.No.304 of 1998 and batch cases dated 09.12.2009 (since reported in 2010(1) MLJ 1142). In that case, the SC/ST Employees association had challenged the action of various nationalised banks including Union Bank of India, Central Bank of India, Canara Bank and Syndicate Bank and sought for a direction from this Court to those banks to provide reservation in promotions in the category of Junior Management Grade (JMG)Scale I to TEG Scale VII by following the Government of India's instructions issued in Office Memorandum No.36012/18/95, Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pension Departments of Personnel and Training dated 13.08.1997 and in furtherance of Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution. This Court by a final order dated 09.12.2009 allowed the writ appeals and directed the banks to implement the Office Memorandum dated 13.08.1997 issued by the Government of India, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment copy.
10. Since these two circulars were issued on the basis of Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in All India Union Bank of India SC/ST Employees Association (cited supra) it is necessary to understand the ratio of the said judgment. Since the operative portion of the judgment referred to the Government of Indias Office memorandum dated 13.08.1997, it is also necessary to refer to the said Office Memorandum. As the entire controversy revolved around the interpretation of the said office memorandum, the Office Memorandum dated 13.08.1997 may be usefully extracted below:-
13. It is in this context, the Division Bench gave directions which has been circularized by the Government of India for its implementation. Though the learned counsel for the respondents stated that the nationalized banks have taken the matter on appeal to the Supreme Court which is likely to come up any time, it is unnecessary to go into such details.
14. In the present case, whether the ruling in the All India Union Bank of India SC/ST Employees Association's case can be pressed into service by the petitioner Association even for filling up the post of General Manager as it was constitutionally guaranteed and that such a right can be enforced by a writ in the nature of mandamus by this Court is the question remains to be answered.
23. For the above reasons, we must say, with all the respect at our command that the decision in Bihar State Harijan Kalyan Parishad1 cannot be said to lay down the law correctly insofar as it purports to hold that the rule of reservation applies in the matter of promotions within Class I.
29. It is true that we have arrived at a conclusion which is different from the one adopted in Bihar State Harijan Kalyan Parishad1 and in Syndicate Bank Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Employees Assn.3 but we have no alternative in view of the clear language of the Office Memorandum dated 26-3-1970, the Presidential directive referred to in Bihar State Harijan Kalyan Parishad1 as also para 9 of the Brochure (whichever edition one looks to). It may be that according to our interpretation, the members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes may stand to gain in some cases, in the sense that they may get more number of promotions than they would have been entitled to had the rule of reservation been applied to promotions within Class I, while in some other cases they may stand to lose. But that cannot be a factor determining the interpretation of the relevant orders. It also appears that a view different from the view taken in Bihar State Harijan Kalyan Parishad1 was taken in the order dated 18-8-1988 in Writ Petition No. 1594 of 1987 (All India Bank of Baroda SC/ST Employees Assn. v. Union of India4), wherein it was held, no doubt on the basis of a concession made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, that the promotion by selection method of officers within Group A (Class I) in the Bank of Baroda shall be done in accordance with the rules contained in para 9.2 in Chapter 9 of the Brochure. This order does not refer to rule of reservation.