Karnataka High Court
Sri U Vijaya Shankar Shenoy vs State Bank Of India on 12 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.55373 OF 2013 (S-PRO)
BETWEEN:
SRI U VIJAYA SHANKAR SHENOY
S/O U NARASIMHA SHENOY
AGED 53 YEARS
R/A NO. 218, 1ST FLOOR
II E CROSS, 8TH MAIN
III BLOCK, III STAGE
BASAVESWARANAGAR
BANGALORE-79
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI AMARESH N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BANK OF INDIA
LEGAL HEAD OFFICE,
REP BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,
HGS, ST.MARKS ROAD,
BENGALURU-01
(AMENDED CARRIED OUT V/O DTD:
17.04.2018)
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SRIBHOOMI YESHAWININ, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. K SHUBHA ANANTHI, ADVOCATE)
2
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
PERTAINING TO THE SELECTION UNDER THE NOTIFICATION /
STAFF CIRCULAR NO.01/2013-14 DATED 2.4.2013 AND ON
PERUSAL HOLD AND DECLARE THAT NON SELECTION OF THE
PETITIONER FOR EFFECTING THE PROMOTION FROM CLERICAL
CADRE TO JMGS-1 UNDER GROUP-D CATEGORY IS ARBITRARY,
DISCRIMINATORY AND BAD IN LAW AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 09.02.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged his non-selection for
promotion from clerical cadre to JMGS-I under Group 'D'
category.
2. The facts leading to the case are as under:
The respondent-Bank invited applications to effect
promotion from clerical cadre to Junior Management Grade
Scale I during 2012. Petitioner was permitted to participate in
the written test and interview under Group 'D' category which
prescribed 10 marks for performance appraisal, 5 marks for
seniority, 4 marks for JAIIB, 6 marks for CAIIB and 75 marks
for interview. The petitioner applied and appeared for
interview. Petitioners grievance before this Court is that
inspite of better educational qualification and he being a senior
most in the clerical cadre who worked in junior management
cadre for a period of 8 long years before he was demoted is
denied promotion though he possessed eligibility criteria.
3. Petitioner in the captioned petition has also
questioned the prescription of 75 marks for interview.
Petitioner would contend that reserving 75 marks in interview
gives unbridled right to the selection committee and therefore,
the very prescription of 75 marks in interview is called in
question on the ground that it is bad and illegal.
4. Per contra, the respondent-Bank, on receipt of
summons, has filed statement of objections and has countered
the petitioner's claim. Respondent on the contrary contended
that petitioner was found to be ineligible for promotion and in
interview, his performance was not upto desired quotient. The
object of interviewing the candidates is intended to take
cognizance of integrity, previous antecedents and satisfactory
work done at previous branches. The respondent/Bank has
also contended that as per the promotion policy in Group 'D',
out of 100 marks, 75 marks is allotted for personal interview.
Pursuant to direction issued by this Court, the
respondent/Bank has also placed on record the departmental
promotion committee report pertaining to petitioner which
contains minutes of interview committee meeting held on
16.07.2013.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank. Perused
the records placed on record by the respondent-Bank. I have
also given my anxious consideration to the list of authorities
relied by the counsel for respondent-Bank.
6. On examination of the promotion policy for Group
'D' employees, it is clearly evident that the promotion from
clerical cadre to officer cadre under Group 'D' is based on
merit cum seniority. While assessing the merit of the
candidates by conducting oral interview, the performance of
the candidates during previous years is assessed by the
committee. Therefore, the promotion policy in the present
case on hand clearly gives an indication that more emphasis is
on merit than seniority and only those candidates who have
secured 40 marks are considered for promotion from clerical
cadre to officer cadre. If promotion is based on minimum
necessary merit and if such minimum merit is assessed by
conducting an interview to make an assessment of their work
performance during previous years or by combination by
either two or all the three of the work performances, minimum
necessary merit of securing 40 marks being a basic
requirement, cannot be assumed to be arbitrary or illegal.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
departmental promotion committee report. The respondent-
Bank has not only placed on record the marks assigned to
petitioner, but has furnished the full list of candidates who had
appeared for the interview. As rightly pointed out by the
learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, similarly placed
employees of respondent-Bank had failed to cross 40
minimum marks. The contention of petitioner that the
committee has consciously and deliberately assigned 24 marks
in oral interview is not substantiated in the present writ
petition. In the entire petition, there are no specific
averments indicating that the selection committee is biased or
had arbitrarily awarded lesser marks. Thus, it is clear that a
process whereby eligible candidates possessing minimum
necessary merit in the feeder posts is first ascertained and
thereafter promotions are made, no indulgence can be granted
in the present case on hand.
8. The relief of declaration sought by the petitioner
assailing the prescription of 75 marks by way of oral interview
also cannot be entertained. It is settled law that a person
having consciously participated in interview cannot turn
around and challenge the selection process. The Apex Court
analysed a catena of judgments including Ashok Kumar vs.
State of Bihar1 to stress that, "it is therefore trite that
candidates having taken part in the selection process without
any demur or protest, cannot challenge the same after having
been declared unsuccessful. Regarding the contention of
marks being granted in an arbitrary manner during interview,
the allocation of marks in an interview by the committee being
arbitrary is not substantiated. The material on record clearly
reveals that respondent-Bank ignoring the previous
antecedents of petitioner has in fact recommended for
promotion.
9. For the reasons stated supra, no valid grounds are
made out which would warrant indulgence at the hands of this
Court. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly
stands dismissed.
(2017) 4 SCC 357
The pending interlocutory application, if any, does not
survive for consideration and stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CA
