Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

It is admitted that the posts in the Middle Management Grade Scale III in the State Bank of India are posts to which appointments are made by selection. The State Bank of India stated before the High Court that the promotion to Middle Management Grade Scale I11 posts depended not merely upon the eligibility but on merit and such promotion was accorded only after a proper evaluation of the service records, performance appraisal and potentiality of the officer concerned to assume higher responsibilities. The evaluation was done by the Selection Committee. which was expected to go into several aspects including the merits and demerits or all the candidates who were eligible. It was further pleaded that the mere absence of adverse remarks did not entitle an employee to promotion to the next higher grade automatically when promotion was by selection. It was further pleaded that after applying the relevant tests laid down by several circulars issued by the Management embodying the guidelines in respect of the selection of officers for promotion to the Middle Management Grade Scale III it was found from time to time that the respondent was not entitled to be promoted. It was further pleaded before us that in any event the High Court was not right in issuing a direction to the management to promote the respondent to the higher post particularly in the absence of any plea of mala fides. The learned counsel for the appellants, however, has very fairly stated that even now the management is willing to consider the case of the respondent for promotion on a proper ap- praisal of the relevant material by the Selection Committee. Whenever promotion to a higher post is to be made on the basis of merit no officer can claim promotion to the higher post as a matter of right by virtue of seniority alone with effect from the date on which his juniors are promoted. It is not sufficient that in his confidential reports it is recorded that his services are 'satisfactory'. An officer may be capable of discharging the duties of the post held by him satisfactorily but he may not be fit for the higher post. Before any such promotion can be effected it is the duty of the management to consider the case of the officer concerned on the basis of the relevant materials. If promo- tion has been denied arbitrarily or without any reason ordinarily the Court can issue a direction to the management to consider the case of the officer concerned for promotion but it cannot issue a direction to promote the officer concerned to the higher post without giving an opportunity to the management to consider the question of promotion. There is good reason for taking this view. The Court is not by its very nature competent to appreciate the abilities, qualities or attributes necessary for the task, office or duty of every kind of post in the modern world and it would be hazardous for it to undertake the responsibility of assessing whether a person is fit for being promoted to a higher post which is to be filled up by selection. The duties of such posts may need skills of different kinds--scientific, technical, financial, industrial. commer- cial, administrative, educational etc. The methods of evalu- ation of the abilities or the competence of persons to be selected for such posts have also become nowadays very much refined and sophisticated and such evaluation should, there- fore, in the public interest ordinarily be left to be done by the individual or a committee consisting of persons who have the knowledge of the requirements of a given post, to be nominated by the employer. Of course. the process of selection adopted by them should always be honest and fair. It is only when the process of selection is vitiated on the ground of bias, mala fides or any other similar vitiating circumstance other considerations will arise. The nature of the writ that can be issued in cases like the one before us has been considered by this Court in the State of Mysore and Anr. v. Syed Mahmood and Ors., [ 1968] 3 S.C.R. 363. In that case rule 43(b) of the Mysore State Civil Services General Recruitment Rules, 1957 re- quired promotion to be made by selection on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, that is seniority subject to the fit- ness of the candidate to discharge the duties of the post from among persons eligible for promotion. While making selections for promotions to the posts of senior statistical assistants from the cadre of junior statistical assistants, the State Government did not consider the case of the re- spondents therein who were junior statistical assistants, and published a list promoting persons ranking below them in point of seniority. The respondents therein filed writ petition before the High Court. The High Court while refus- ing to quash the seniority list directed the appellant-State to promote the respondents as from the dates on which their juniors were promoted and treat their promotion as effective from that date. In the appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court this Court observed that while making selec- tions for promotion to the posts of senior statistical assistants from the cadre of junior statistical assistants, in 1959, the State Government was under a duty to consider whether having regard to their seniority and fitness they should be promoted. Since the promotions were irregularly made the respondents therein were entitled to ask the State Government to reconsider their case. In the circumstances. this Court observed, that the High Court could only issue a writ to the State Government compelling it to perform its duty and to consider whether having regard to their seniori- ty and fitness, the respondents should have been promoted on the relevant dates when officers junior to them were promot- ed and that instead of issuing such a writ the High Court had wrongly issued a writ directing the State Government to promote them with retrospective effect. This Court further observed that the High Court ought not to have issued such a writ without giving the State Government an opportunity in the first instance to consider their fitness for promotion in 1959. The ratio of the above decision is that where the State Government or a statutory authority is under an obli- gation to promote an employee to a higher post which has to be filled up by selection the State Government or the statu- tory authority alone should be directed to consider the question whether the employee is entitled to be so promoted and that the Court should not ordinarily issue a writ to the Government or the statutory authority to promote an officer straightaway. The principle enunciated in the above decision is equally applicable to the case on hand.