Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
PETITIONER:
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MOHD. MYNUDDIN
DATE OF JUDGMENT17/07/1987
BENCH:
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
BENCH:
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
SINGH, K.N. (J)
CITATION:
1987 AIR 1889 1987 SCR (3) 532
1987 SCC (4) 486 JT 1987 (3) 89
1987 SCALE (2)53
ACT:
Service Law--Practice & Procedure:
Selection Post--Promotion on merit--Decision of Selec-
tion Committee to prevail unless vitiated by mala fides or
bias. Seniority and satisfactory Service not relevant.
Constitution of India, Articles 226 & 32: Service Mat-
ters--Promotion--Powers of the Court--Court can direct con-
sideration of the case--Cannot direct promotion.
HEADNOTE:
The respondent holding a Middle Management Grade Scale
II post in the appellant Bank was found not fit for promo-
tion to Grade Scale III by the Selection Committee in the
year 1979 and superseded. His case was again considered in
the years 1980, 1981 and 1983 but denied promotion. He filed
a writ petition in the High Court in 1984 for the issue of a
direction to the management to promote him to the higher
post with effect from 1979 with the assertion that he was
fully eligible for such promotion.
The Single Judge noticed that in respondent’s confiden-
tial reports for the years 1977-78, 1979-80 and 1980-81 it
had been recorded that his service was ’satisfactory’ and
that there were no adverse remarks against him. He, there-
fore, took the view that there was nothing which disentitled
the respondent to promotion and that the action of the
management in not promoting him was arbitrary, and accord-
ingly issued a direction to the appellants to promote the
respondent with effect from 1.8.1979 when his batch mates
were promoted. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed
by the appellants.
In this appeal by special leave it was contended for the
appellants that the promotion to Middle Management Grade
Scale III posts depended not merely upon the eligibility but
on merit and such promotion was accorded only after a proper
evaluation by the Selection Committee of the service re-
cords, performance appraisal and potentiality of the officer
concerned to assume higher responsibilities, that the mere
533
absence of adverse remarks did not entitle an employee to
promotion to the next higher grade automatically when promo-
tion was by selection. that after applying the relevant
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6
tests laid down by the management 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,
and that in any event the High Court was not right in issu-
ing a direction to the management to promote the respondent
to the higher post particularly in the absence of any plea
of mala fides.
Allowing the appeal,
HELD: The High Court was not right in directing the
appellants to promote the respondent to the Middle Manage-
ment Grade Scale 111 with effect from 1979. [538C]
If promotion 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. This is because 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 which is to be filled up by selection. The
duties of such posts may need skills of different kinds-
scientific. technical, financial, industrial, commercial,
administrative, educational etc. The evaluation of the
abilities should, therefore, in the public interest ordi-
narily be left to be done by the individual or a committee
consisting of persons who have the knowledge of the require-
ments of a given post. [536E-H]
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. Of course,
the process of selection adopted by them should always he
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 circumstances other considerations will
arise. [536C-E; H; 537A]
534
State of Mysore and Anr. v. Syed Mohmood and ors.,
[1968]3 S.C.R. 363, applied.
In the instant case at all relevant times the case of
the promotion of respondent has been considered in accord-
ance with law by the selection committee constituted by the
appellant Bank and it did not find him fit for promotion on
all such occasions. There is no allegation of bias or mala
fides urged against the members of the selection committee
or the management. The appellants, therefore, cannot be said
to have committed any error is not promoting the respondent.
]538B-C]
The appellants are directed to consider the case of the
respondent for promotion within four months from the date of
the judgment. and if found fit to promote him forthwith.
[538E]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1387 of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6
1987.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.9.1986 of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court in C.W. Appeal No. 1027 of 1986.
A.K. Sen, K. Srinivasamurthy and Kailash Vasdev for the
Appellants.
M.K. Ramamurthi and M.A. Krishna Murthy, for the Re-
spondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VENKATARAMIAH, J. The State Bank of India and two of its
officers have filed this appeal by special leave against the
judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh in Writ Appeal No. 1027 of 1986 dated 25.9.1986
affirming the judgment dated 28.3. 1986 of the learned
Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 5133 of 1984 issuing a
direction to the appellants to promote the respondent, Mohd.
Mynuddin to the Middle Management Grade Scale III.
The respondent who was holding the post of the Manager,
S.I.B. Division, State Bank of India, Vijayawada (Andhra
Pradesh) which was a post in Middle Management Grade Scale
II filed the above writ petition before the High Court in
the year 1984 complaining that he had been wrongly denied
promotion to the Middle Management Grade Scale III along
with some others who belonged to his batch
535
without any reasonable ground, even though he was fully
eligible for such promotion. On the above basis he prayed
for the issue of a direction to the management to promote
him to the higher post with effect from 1979. According to
the appellants his case was not considered in the year 1979
on account of inadequacy of material regarding his eligibil-
ity but when it was brought to the notice of the management
that he had necessary eligibility for the post, his case was
considered in 1982 for the vacancies of 1980 and 1981 but he
was not selected. Again his case for promotion was consid-
ered on 13.8.1983. Then again he was found not fit for
promotion and, therefore, he was not promoted.
The main contention of the respondent before the High
Court was that since there were no adverse remarks in any of
his confidential reports, he should have been promoted to
the higher post. The learned Single Judge noticed that in
the confidential reports relating to the respondent it had
been recorded that his service was ’satisfactory’ in the
years 1977-78, 1979-80 and 1980-81 and that there were no
adverse remarks against the respondent. The learned Single
Judge, therefore. found that on the material placed before
the Court there was nothing which disentitled the respondent
to the promotion in question and that the action of the
management in not promoting him was arbitrary. The learned
Single Judge accordingly allowed the writ petition and
issued a direction to the appellants to promote the respond-
ent to the post of Middle Management Grade Scale III with
effect from 1.8. 1979 when his batch mates were promoted and
that he should be given all consequential benefits. Ag-
grieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge the
appellants filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the
High Court which, as stated earlier. dismissed the appeal
affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge by its
order dated 25.9. against which this appeal by special leave
is filed.
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6
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
536
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
537
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., [
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6
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
538
is equally applicable to the case on hand.
It is seen that the Selection Committee constituted by
the State Bank of India has considered the case of the
respondent for promotion to the vacancies of the years 1980
and 1981 and for the subsequent period from time to time.
The Selection Committee did not find the respondent fit for
promotion on all such occasions. There is no allegation of
bias or mala fides urged against the members of the Selec-
tion Committee or the management. On the material placed
before us we hold that at all relevant times the case of the
promotion of respondent has been considered in accordance
with law. No other contention is urged before us. On the
facts and in the circumstances of the case we do not find
any error committed by the appellants. The High Court was
not. therefore, right in directing the appellants to promote
the respondent with effect from 1979. As mentioned earlier.
the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that
the Selection Committee constituted by the appellants would
again consider the case of the respondent for promotion on a
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6
proper appraisal of the relevant material.
In the circumstances, we feel that the direction issued
by the High Court should be set aside and we accordingly do
so. The appellants are, however, directed to consider the
case of the respondent for promotion within four months from
today and if on an assessment of the relevant material the
State Bank of India finds that the respondent is fit to be
promoted, he shall be promoted forthwith.
This appeal is accordingly disposed of. There will.
however be no order as to costs.
P.S.S. Appeal
allowed.
539