Sharwan Kumar Vigmal vs The General Manager Nw-I , Appointing Authority, State Bank Of India

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: 27.07.2026
% Judgment Delivered on: 02.09.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010326522026
+ LPA 563/2026
SHARWAN KUMAR VIGMAL .....Appellant
Versus
THE GENERAL MANAGER NW-I, APPOINTING
AUTHORITY, STATE BANK OF INDIA .....Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Appellant : Mr. Sharwan Kumar Vigmal,
Appellant-in-person.
For the Respondent : None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J
1. The present intra court Appeal has been filed by the Appellant
assailing the order dated 02.04.2026 (“ Impugned Order ”) passed by
learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 10648/2018 (“ Writ Petition ”), whereby
the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed.
2. The Appellant joined the services of the State Bank of India (“ Bank ”)
on 28.03.1983 as a Clerk-cum-Typist at the Kirti Nagar Branch, New Delhi,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 563/2026 Page 1 of 7

and rendered service with the Bank for over 35 years. In the year 2017, the
Appellant was not promoted from Middle Management Grade Scale
(“ MMGS ”)-II to MMGS-III and, being aggrieved thereby, instituted
W.P.(C) No. 7578/2017 before this Court.
3. Vide Judgment dated 31.01.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 7578/2017,
the said writ petition came to be disposed of in view of the undertaking
given by the Bank in short counter affidavit to the said writ petition to
consider the Appellant’s case in the promotional exercise to be held in the
year 2018-19 for back-dated promotion to MMGS-III for the years 2016-17
and 2017-18, subject to his fulfilment of the eligibility criteria under the
applicable promotion policy. The said policy required the Appellant to
undergo a written examination, followed by an interview. It was further held
in the said judgement dated 31.01.2018 that there was no valid reason to
waive the written test component and rejected the Appellant’s request for
such waiver. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction
to the Bank to consider the Appellant for promotion from a back date,
subject to his undertaking the written test and appearing in the interview.
4. Pursuant thereto, the Appellant participated in the promotion exercise
conducted for the year 2018-19. On 15.05.2018, the Bank issued the final
list of candidates promoted from MMGS-II to MMGS-III. The Appellant’s
name, however, did not appear in the said final list. Aggrieved thereby, the
Appellant filed the Writ Petition, inter alia , assailing the promotion list
dated 15.05.2018, which came to be dismissed by way of the Impugned
Order.
5. The Appellant, appearing in-person, submitted that the promotion list
dated 15.05.2018 was unfair and discriminatory qua the Appellant,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 563/2026 Page 2 of 7

inasmuch as the Bank sought to penalise him for having approached this
Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 7578/2017. It was further submitted that the
Bank acted in a mala fide manner in denying promotion to the Appellant,
which, according to him, he deserved on account of more than 35 years of
unblemished service rendered by him to the Bank.
6. The Appellant further submitted that, although no written test had
been conducted for the promotion exercise of the year 2017-18, he was
made to appear in the written test despite the Appellant being considered for
back-dated promotion, thereby causing him undue prejudice.
7. The Appellant also submitted that Appendix-I to the additional
affidavit filed by the Bank pursuant to the order dated 11.12.2019 passed in
the Writ Petition did not disclose the marks secured by him for the year
2018-19 and, instead, disclosed only the marks secured by him for the years
2016-17 and 2017-18.
8. We have heard the Appellant appearing in-person and have perused
the material placed on record.
9. The gravamen of the Appellant’s contentions is that the promotion
exercise conducted by the Bank for the year 2018-19 was vitiated by
unfairness and prejudice against him. On this premise, the Appellant has
alleged mala fides on the part of the Bank in the conduct of the said
promotion exercise.
10. The issue that arises for consideration in the present Appeal is
whether, on the basis of the material available on record, the Appellant has
been able to demonstrate any legal infirmity in the aforesaid promotion
exercise or establish mala fides on the part of the Bank in denying him the
promotion.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 563/2026 Page 3 of 7

11. In matters concerning promotion, the scope of judicial review is
limited as the Courts do not sit in appeal over the assessment of suitability of
a candidate for promotion and can only examine whether the process is
vitiated by mala fides , arbitrariness, or material irregularity.
12. In this regard, learned Single Judge has rightly observed in the
Impugned Order that a plea of mala fides is easy to make, but difficult to
establish. The Appellant’s case is principally founded on the assertion that
he was penalised by the Bank for having earlier approached this Court by
filing W.P.(C) No. 7578/2017. However, Courts cannot interfere with
promotion exercises merely based on conjectures or surmises of a candidate
who, having participated in the selection process, alleges mala fides only
after being unsuccessful therein.
13. Allegations impugning the fairness or legality of a selection process
must be supported by cogent and credible material. In the present case, the
Appellant has failed to demonstrate any mala fides on the part of the Bank.
His contention that he was penalised for having earlier approached this
Court cannot be accepted in the absence of any material indicating mala
fides in the conduct of the promotion exercise for the year 2018-19.
14. The Appellant has also contended that, although the written test
component had not formed part of the promotion exercise for the year 2017-
18, he was required to undertake the written test despite being considered for
back-dated promotion. In this regard, it would be apposite to refer to the
Judgment dated 31.01.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 7578/2017, the relevant
portion whereof is extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:
“ 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 563/2026 Page 4 of 7

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. ”
15. Upon a perusal of the above-extracted portion of the Judgement dated
31.01.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 7578/2017 earlier filed by the Appellant,
which was never challenged by him, it is evident that this Court had
expressly examined the request for waiver for the written test and held that
there was no valid justification existed for waiving the written test
component for the promotion exercise to be conducted in the year 2018-19
for the Appellant.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 563/2026 Page 5 of 7

16. Accordingly, the Bank was directed to consider the Appellant for
promotion from a back date, subject to the Appellant clearing the written test
and appearing in the interview. The written test undertaken by the Appellant
was, therefore, conducted in compliance with the aforesaid judgment and
having participated in the written test and interview pursuant thereto, the
Appellant cannot be permitted to assail the said process merely because he
was unsuccessful in securing promotion.
17. The Appellant has further contended that Appendix-I to the additional
affidavit filed by the Bank pursuant to the order dated 11.12.2019 passed in
the Writ Petition did not disclose the marks secured by him for the year
2018-19 and, instead, disclosed only the marks secured by him for the years
2016-17 and 2017-18. However, in the reply filed by the Bank to the Writ
Petition, it was clarified that the final merit list was prepared based on three
components, namely, appraisal, written test and interview, carrying
weightages of 40%, 50% and 10%, respectively. Consequently, the marks
secured by the Appellant in the written test and interview, being 24 and 9
respectively, which were conducted during the promotion exercise of the
year 2018-19, were taken into consideration for assessing the Appellant for
promotion from a back date, in terms of the directions contained in the
Judgment dated 31.01.2018 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 7578/2017
and as regards the appraisal component, the same was considered for the
year 2016-17 and 2017-18, wherein the Appellant secured 38.4 and 39
marks, respectively, were considered. This was necessitated by the fact that
the Appellant was being considered for back-dated promotion for those
years, notwithstanding that the promotion exercise itself was conducted in
the year 2018-19.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 563/2026 Page 6 of 7

18. In these circumstances, the Appellant’s contention that his marks for
the year 2018-19 were not disclosed cannot be accepted as a ground to assail
the promotion process conducted in 2018-19 on the allegations of mala fides
or material irregularity by the Bank.
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion
that the Appellant has been unable to establish any infirmity in the
promotion exercise conducted in the year 2018-19, wherein the candidature
of the Appellant for back-dated promotion for the years 2016-17 and 2017-
18 was duly considered in compliance with directions contained in
Judgement dated 31.01.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 7578/2017 passed by
this Court.
20. In view thereof, we find no ground to interfere with the Impugned
Order dated 02.04.2026 passed by learned Single Judge. The present Appeal
is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
TEJAS KARIA, J
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
SEPTEMBER 2, 2026
St/ap
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 563/2026 Page 7 of 7