Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

% 02.04.2026

1. The Petitioner, who was serving as Deputy Manager in Middle Management Grade Scale ["MMGS"] II in the State Bank of India ["the Bank"], assails the promotion list dated 15th May, 2018 for promotion from MMGS-II to MMGS-III under the merit channel. His case, in substance, is that though he was directed in earlier proceedings to be considered for backdated promotion, and though he qualified the written-test stage and was called for interview, he was kept out of the final select list for collateral reasons and under the guise of interview. He also alleges discriminatory treatment at the stage of appeal and under the later special dispensation for unfilled vacancies.

5. The Bank disputes the premise. It states, first, that the Petitioner's position at serial no.150 in the Zone of Selection list and later at serial no.23 in the Interview list does not establish anything, because those lists were not arranged in descending order of merit but office-wise and alphabetically. Secondly, the final selection was not based on interview alone, but on a composite merit drawn from appraisal, written test and interview in the prescribed proportion of 40%, 50% and 10% respectively. Thirdly, the 47 candidates who were selected without interview belonged to the SC/ST category and were dealt with in terms of Government of India guidelines, with the Bank's promotion policy being aligned to those norms. Fourthly, the appeal stage was also merit-based, and the Petitioner's non-selection there cannot by itself suggest victimisation. Finally, it is submitted that the June 2018 special dispensation for unfilled vacancies did not apply to the Petitioner, because he was being considered only for backdated promotion years 2016-17 and 2017-18 pursuant to the earlier order of this Court, whereas that dispensation was for unsuccessful candidates of promotion year 2018-19.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2026 at 21:41:22 order dated 11th December, 2019, encloses Appendix-I, setting out the Petitioner's marks under the different heads and comparing them with the marks of the last selected candidates.

10. That document materially weakens the very foundation of the petition. Appendix-I shows that the cut-off of the final select list was 74.25. It further shows that, for backdated promotion year 2017-18, the Petitioner secured a total final score of 72, and for backdated promotion year 2016-17, 71.40. In other words, on the figures disclosed by the Bank, he fell short of the cut-off in both years. The last three selected candidates were all at 74.25.

15. The argument founded on the later option exercise for deficit circles is This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2026 at 21:41:22 also unpersuasive. The Bank's explanation is that the Petitioner was being considered, pursuant to the earlier order of this Court, only for backdated promotion years 2016-17 and 2017-18, even though he participated in the 2018-19 process, and that the special dispensation for unfilled vacancies was confined to unsuccessful candidates of promotion year 2018-19. This was in compliance of the earlier order, which directed consideration from a back date subject to the Petitioner undertaking the written test and interview. The Petitioner has not shown from the record that he formed part of the class of officers to whom that later dispensation extended.