Delhi High Court
Sharwan Kumar Vigmal vs General Manager ... on 31 January, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 31, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 7578/2017
SHARWAN KUMAR VIGMAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shanti Prakash, Advocate
Versus
GENERAL MANAGER (NW-II)/(APPOINTING AUTHORITY)
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Anil Kumar Sangal,
Mr. Siddharth Sangal and Mr. Abhay Kumar
Tayal, Advocates for respondent-SBI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. Petitioner is Deputy Manager in Middle Management Grade Scale-
II with respondent-Bank, who had sought promotion from MMGS-II to
MMGS-III in the year 2017-18. Vide Announcement of 1st July, 2017,
written test for the said promotion stood waived and the list of Zone of
Selection (Annexure P-5) was drawn on 12th July, 2017 and thereafter,
interviews were held and the Final Result (Annexure P-7) was declared
on 31st July, 2017. Since petitioner was not in the zone of consideration
because he did not have mandatory two years' rural service to his credit,
therefore, he was not called for the interview. The case of petitioner is
that he was never given an opportunity to undertake rural service.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is presently
posted in the rural branch and he would be completing two years on 30th
March, 2018. In the short counter affidavit filed by respondent-Bank, the
stand taken is that petitioner has been given a chance as a special case to
participate in the promotional exercise to be held in the year 2018-19 and
petitioner may be considered for back-dated promotion to MMSG-III for
the years 2016-17 and 2017-18, subject to his meeting the eligibility
criteria. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that many similarly placed
employees, who had not completed their rural assignment, have been
promoted though the promotion was actually given only after they had
completed the rural assignment.
3. Learned counsel for respondent-Bank submits that eligibility
criteria consists of participation in the Written Objective Type
Examination, followed by interview and if petitioner clears the said
Examination, then he would be given back-dated promotion.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner relies upon Supreme Court's
decision in Union of India and Anr. V. Hemraj Singh Chauhan &Ors.,
AIR 2010 SC 1682 and Major General H.M. Singh, VSM v. Union of
India and Another, (2014) 3 SCC 670 to submit that the right of an
eligible employee for promotion is a fundamental right and since the
Examination for the last year was waived, therefore, it is required to be
waived for this year also.
5. Vide order of 18th December, 2017, respondent was called upon to
consider petitioner's Representation for waiver of Written Examination
and the said Representation has been dismissed by respondent by
maintaining that the Written Test cannot be waived. Vide last order,
respondent was called upon to explain as to why the written test cannot
be waived for this year, when it was waived for the last year.
6. Learned counsel for respondent has placed on record copy of the
Memorandum of the Executive Committee of the Central Board of
respondent-Bank for the year 2017-18 to show that Written Test for the
last year was waived due to merger of five Associate Banks and it is
submitted that since written test is an integral part of the eligibility
criteria, therefore, it cannot be waived and that the Written Test is to take
place on 4th February, 2018.
7. Upon hearing and on perusal of material on record and the
decisions cited, I find that right of an eligible employee to be considered
for promotion cannot be negated. However, petitioner cannot claim
promotion from MMGS-II to MMGS-III in the year 2017-18 as a matter
of right because he had not undergone the mandatory rural posting of two
years and so, his name was not put in the zone of consideration.
According to petitioner's counsel, some employees who had not
undergone rural posting, have been granted promotion but that too, after
they have completed the rural posting.
8. It is a settled legal position that entitlement to promotion is always
subject to fulfillment of eligibility criteria. In Major General H.M. Singh
(Supra), Supreme Court had directed that promotion be granted because
the appointing authority had rejected the recommendation of Selection
Board for promotion, without disagreeing with the findings of the
selection board. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent-Bank, it has
been undertaken to consider petitioner's case for promotion from back
date provided he fulfills the eligibility criteria. The eligibility criteria for
promotion as per promotion policy (Annexure P-4) requires petitioner to
undergo objective type written examination, followed by interview.
Petitioner seeks waiver of written test which is purportedly slated for 4th
February, 2018 because it stood waived last year. Respondent-Bank has
clarified that the written test was waived last year due to merger of five
associate banks. There was a valid reason for waiving the written test last
year, but there is no justification to now waive the written test for the
promotions to be made this year.
9. In view of aforesaid, this petition is disposed of with direction to
respondent-Bank to consider petitioner for promotion from back date,
provided he undertakes the written test and appears in the interview.
SUNIL GAUR
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 31, 2018
sk/r
