Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10
PETITIONER:
SYNDICATE BANK SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES EMPLOY-
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY
DATE OF JUDGMENT10/08/1990
BENCH:
KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)
BENCH:
KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)
AGRAWAL, S.C. (J)
CITATION:
1990 SCR (3) 713 1990 SCC Supl. 350
JT 1990 (3) 468 1990 SCALE (2)229
ACT:
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14 and 16 --Sched-
uled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Employees--Syndicate
Bank--Group ‘A’ posts reservation for SC/ST Officers--Appli-
cation of roster system--Directions by Court--Reservation
policy in respect of SC/ST applicable to such posts.
HEADNOTE:
The Syndicate Bank Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
Employees Associated representing the interests of SC/ST
employees throughout the country and three Assistant Manag-
ers of the Bank have filed this petition under article 32 of
the constitution of India. Their case is as follows: That
Group ’A’ Officers posts are class I posts with Grade Scale
I to Grade Scale VII. Criteria for promotion from Grade I to
the next Grade and onwards is regulated by a promotion
policy dated 17.9.1985. Being a nationalised Bank all policy
decisions are controlled and governed by rules framed by the
Central Government from time to time. In order to implement
the principles enshrined in the Constitution of granting
benefit of members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes,
the Government has evolved the policy of reservation for
them in the ratio of 5% and 7 1/2% respectively both at the
time of initial recruitment as well as at the time of promo-
tions in all government establishments. Though this policy
was extended to the Banking Industry in 1972 it remained
restricted to appointments by direct recruitment only. Later
the Central Govt. by its D.C. letter dated 31.12.1977 ad-
dressed to all the nationalised banks required them to
implement the reservation policy to promotional posts also.
But the respondent bank did not follow the policy within the
Officers cadre on the mistaken impression that the reserva-
tion in promotional cadres through selection is barred. To
this the petitioners submitted that the Home Ministry’s O.M.
issued as early as on 26.3.1970 clearly provided
714
reservations for SC & ST Officers’ promotion within class I
posts including officers drawing a basic pay of Rs.2,000 per
month or less. This was later followed by O.M. dated
23.12.1974 issued by the department of Personnel and Admin-
istrative Reforms to all the Ministries on the same lines.
However the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10
affairs (Banking Division) issued a circular dated 30.5.1981
to all the nationalised banks that there is no reservation
for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in ’Promotion by
Selection’ within the officers cadre; that the concessions
to SC & ST employees mentioned in Home Ministry’s O.M. dated
26.3.1970 would be available to them in ’ Promotion by
Selection’ to posts within the officers cadre upto scale III
only and all the banks were required to implement instruc-
tions contained in Home Ministry’s O.Ms. dated 26.3.1970 and
23.12.1974 with such modifications as may be necessary in
the light of the circular dated 30.5.1981. The petitioners
have contended that the Central Government wrongly and
erroneously interpreted these circulars in taking the view
that there was no reservation in the promotional posts
within the officers cadre. Finally they say that despite the
unequivocal directions from the Govt. of India, Ministry of
Finance contained in its letter dated 28.11.1986 to all the
nationalised banks clarifying the position in regard to
reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for
promotions and the decision of this Court in Bihar State
Harijan Kalyan Parishad v. Union of India & Ors., which
applied in all force to the case of the petitioners, the
Respondent Bank failed to make reservations within the
officers cadre and continues to follow the selection method
of promotion which has lead to the filing of this Petition.
Allowing the Writ Petition, this Court,
HELD: Even though the promotion posts are based on
selection method, the rule of reservation will supply to
posts within group ’A’ and the benefit of reservation policy
to members of SC and ST cannot be denied on the ground that
promotional posts are to be filled by method of selection.
Government of India committed a clear mistake in not apply-
ing the principle already decided in Bihar State Harijan
Kalyan Parishad’s case to the Syndicate Bank and in not
giving it a clear direction this regard. [725G-H; 726A]
There can be no manner of doubt that the management of
the Syndicate Bank was not at fault as they were bound by
the instructions and policy laid down by the government of
India and in the absence of a clear direction from the
Government it was not possible for them to grant relief to
the SC/ST employees of the bank. [726B]
715
Though Group ’A’ posts were selection posts still the
reservation policy is applicable to such posts and the
respondents are directed to compute the backlog of unfilled
reserved quota available to SC/ST officers in the promotion-
al posts with effect from 1.1.1978, the date of introduction
of reservation policy in the respondent bank. The respond-
ents are further directed to grant promotion to the SC/ST
employees of the Syndicate Bank with all consequential
benefits of salary and allowances from the respective dates
they should have been promoted, after applying the roster
system in their favour. [726D-E]
Bihar State Harijan Kalval Parishad v. Union of India &
Ors.. [1985] 2 SCC 644, followed.
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 847 of 1987.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
Rajinder Sachar, K.R. Nagaraja, P.K. Rao, R.S. Hegde,
V.A. Babu and R. Rajappa for the Petitioners.
K.N. Bhat, Vijay K. Verma and Ms. Madhu Moolchandani for
the Respondents.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KASLIWAL, J. This Petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India has been filed by the Syndicate Bank
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Employees Association
representing the interest of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes Employees of the Syndicate Bank all over India as
well as by three other Assistant Managers of the Syndicate
Bank. The case as set up in the petition is that Group ’A’
Officers posts which are Class I posts contain different
grades called Junior Management Grade Scale I, Middle Man-
agement Grade Scale II, Middle Management Grade Scale III
and like this upto Grade Scale VII. The criteria for promo-
tions from Junior Management Grade Scale I to Middle Manage-
ment Grade Scale II and so on is based on a promotion policy
dated 17.9.1985 flamed in this regard by the Bank. According
to the petitioners the Syndicate Bank is a Nationalised Bank
owned and controlled by the Central Government. All the
policy decisions and major internal administration are
regulated and governed by and under Rules issued by the
Central Government from time to time. In order to implement
the principles enshrined in the Constitution of India grant-
ing benefit to members belonging to Scheduled
716
Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the Central Government evolved
the concept of quota system in the ratio of 15% and 7-1/2%
reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes re-
spectively both at the time of recruitment as well as at the
time of promotions in all Government organisations.
It has been further alleged by the Petitioners that 14
leading banks of the country were nationalised in the year
1969 and the Government ought to have extended the said
policy of reservation in the banking sector also w.e.f.
1969. However, the reservation policy was extended to the
banking industry initially in the year 1972, but that re-
mained restricted in respect of appointments made by direct
recruitment only. Later on by a D.O. Letter No. 10/24/74-SCT
(B) dated 31.12.1977 the Central Government called upon the
banks to implement the reservation policy in the matter of
promotions posts also. In the matter of promotions within
the Officers cadre, the respondent bank did not maintain any
roster and did not follow the reservation policy on an
erroneous impression that the reservation in promotional
cadres made through selection method is barred. The peti-
tioners in this regard have submitted that by an Officer
Memorandum issued by the Home Ministry as long back as on
26.3.1970 clearly provided reservations for Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes Officers for their promotion within
Class I posts and also in cases of Officers who drew a basic
pay of Rs.2,000 per month or less. Subsequently Department
of Personnel and Administrative Reforms also issued an O.M.
No. 1/10/ 74-Esstt (SCT) dated 23.12.1974 to all Ministries
on. the same lines as contained in the earlier O.M. issued
by the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 26th March, 1970. The
Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of
Economic Affairs (Banking Division) issued a Circular dated
30th May, 1981 addressed to all the 26 Nationalised Banks
existing at that time in the matter of reservation for
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in respect of promo-
tion. In the aforesaid letter after making a reference to
the Department’s letter D.O. No. 10/24/75-SCT (B) dated
31.12.1977 Ministry of Home Affairs O.M. No. 1/9/69-Esstt
(SCT) dated 26.3.1970 and Department of Personnel and Admin-
istrative Reforms O.M. No. 1/10/74-Esstt (SCT) dated
23.12.74 it was stated that as per the above Government
orders there is no reservation for Scheduled Castes and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10
Scheduled Tribes in ’Promotion by Selection’ within the
Officers cadre. It was further stated in the above circular
that certain concessions and facilities are to be provided
to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Officers in
order to improve their chances for selection to the Higher
categories of posts in the Officers cadre in accordance with
the orders contained in the
717
aforesaid O.Ms of Ministry of Home Affairs. It was further
stated that it has been decided that the concessions men-
tioned in Para 2 of Home Ministry’s Office Memorandum dated
26.3.1970 would be available to the SC/ST Officers in Public
sector Bank/Financial Institutions in ’Promotions by Selec-
tions’ to posts within the Officers cadre upto Scale III.
All the banks were requested to implement the Government
instructions contained in the Officer Memorandums of Minis-
try of Home Affairs and Department of Personnel and Adminis-
trative Reforms dated 26.3.1970 and 23.12.1974 respectively
in the existing scheme of promotions with such procedural
modifications as may be necessary.
The case of the petitioners further is that the Central
Government wrongly and erroneously interpreted the above
circulars and in taking the view that there was no reserva-
tion in the promotional posts within the officers cadre. In
identical circumstances the Ministry of Steel and Mines in a
letter dated April 8, 1982 addressed to the Chairman of the
Steel Authority of India Limited and letter dated August 19,
1982 from the Steel Authority of India to the Chief Person-
nel Manager Bokaro Steel Plant took the view that the Sched-
uled Castes and Scheduled Tribes personnel were not entitled
to the benefit of reservation in the matter of promotion of
selection posts within Group ’A’. The Bihar State Harijan
Kalyan Parishad came before this Court by special leave
challenging the above view taken by the Steel Authority of
India and the Union of India. This court in Bihar State
Harijan Kalyan Parishad v. Union of India & Ors., [1985] 2
SCC 644 granted special leave. This Court held in the above
case that a close perusal of the directive and in particular
paragraph 9 which dealt with the concessions to employees of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in promotions by
selection method makes it abundantly clear that the rule of
reservation is also applicable to promotions by selection to
posts within Group ’A’ which carry an ultimate salary of
Rs.2250 per month or less but the procedure is slightly
different than the case of other posts. It was further held
in the above case that while the rule of reservation applies
to promotions by selection to posts within group ’A’ carry-
ing a salary of Rs.2250 per month or less, it is prescribed
that only those officers belonging to the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes will be considered for promotion who
are senior be within the zone of consideration. Thereafter a
Select List depending upon the number of vacancies would be
drawn up in which also those officers belonging to Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes would be included who are not
considered unfit for promotion. Their position in the Select
List would be that assigned to them by the
718
departmental Promotion Committee on the basis of the record
of service. In other words their inclusion in the Select
List would not give them seniority, merely by virtue of
their belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
over other officer’s placed above them in he Select List
made by Departmental Promotion Committee. The court bus
quashed the List dated April 8, 1982 and August 19, 1982 and
directed the respondents to give effect to paragraph 9 of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10
the Presidential directive w.e.f. the date of the directive.
Subsequently a Miscellaneous Petition No. 3637/86 was also
filed in view of a misunderstanding of the above Judgment by
the Authorities. The Court by order dated 21st January, 1987
deciding the above miscellaneous petition and made the
following observations:
"We wish to clarify the position by stating that the Sched-
uled Castes/Scheduled Tribes Officers who are senior enough
to be within zone of consideration for promotion should be
included in the Select List against the vacancies available
to-the members of Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes accord-
ing to the rosters, provided they are not considered unfit
for promotion. Paragraph 2 of the Presidential Directive
should be strictly adhered to and effect shall be given on
the basis of scales of pay that obtained prior to 1975 as
mentioned in that paragraph. The officers promoted as a
consequence of our order will be entitled to be paid salary
and allowances from the respective dates with effect from
which they should have been promoted."
After the above decision of the Supreme Court which
applied in all force to the case of the present petitioners,
a meeting took place between the representatives of Syndi-
cate Bank SC/ST employees Association and the Management of
Syndicate Bank on 16th and 17th April, 1986. In the afore-
said meeting the representatives of the management were
fully convinced with the stand taken by the representatives
of Syndicate Bank SC and ST employees Association and after
agreeing in principle, they assured to take up the matter
very strongly again with the Government of India, Ministry
of Finance (Banking Division) for their approval. The peti-
tioners thereafter made frantic efforts and also submitted
representations but no relief was granted to the petition-
ers. It may be mentioned that Minister of State for Finance,
Government of India in his letter dated November 22, 1986
addressed to Shri Banwarilal Bairva Member of Parliament
clearly admitted as regards the reservation for SC/ST em-
ployees in Indian Overseas Bank that he had checked up his
reply to the Lok Sabha
719
starred question No. 342 answered on 5th August. 1986 and
had"’ got further clarifications from the bank of the
subject. It was further stated in the above letter as fol-
lows:
"In respect of promotions. the bank was maintaining rosters
for only such category of posts to which the reservations
were being applied by the bank. Since as per the Brochure on
reservations for SCs/STs are available in promotions within
the officers cadre only if they are based on seniority, and
the bank considered the method of promotions followed by it
as one based on selection. it did not consider maintenance
of rosters necessary. During the course of discussions
between the officials of the bank and Banking Division, it
was revealed that the procedure followed by the bank for
effecting promotions within the officers cadre was the one
falling within the categorisation of seniority. The bank was
immediately advised to maintain rosters even for these
promotions within the Officers cadre and to provide for
reservations for the SCs/STs. The bank has accepted its
mistake and has already agreed to provide for reservations
and also to calculate the backlog from 1978 when the reser-
vations in promotions were first introduced in the banks."
It may be also mentioned that the Government of India,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking
Division) vide letter No. F. No. 10/72/86-SCT (B) dated
28.11.1986 addressed to all the nationalised banks also
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10
clarified the position in regard to reservations for SC/ST
in promotions as under:
"It may be recalled that instructions were issued by the
Government on 3.5.1980 advising bank to apply the provisions
of carry forward interchange, and lapsing of vacancies in
promotions also because of certain factors even though
strictly speaking these provisions are not applicable to
promotions by selection. In doing so, the posts filled by
selection method were specifically categorised as those
where promotions are made on the basis of a written examina-
tion followed by interview and/or on the basis of the inter-
view. On the other hand promotions based on the assessment
of the confidential reports of the officers were classified
as those based on seniority, subject to fitness. The banks
are, therefore, requested to review the method
720
of promotions followed by them and ensure that wherever the
rosters are to be maintained for determining the number of
vacancies reserved for SC/ST. This is done scrupulously. The
results of the review may be intimated to the Government by
15th December, 1986. While intimating the information, the
methodology adopted for effecting promotions from various
cadres/scales should be specifically intimated".
The grievances of the petitioners is that despite the
aforesaid unequivocal directions from the Government, the
bank failed to make reservations for the Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes employees. The petitioners made
representations to the respondents in this regard in which
it was reiterated that after decision of the Supreme Court
in Bihar State Harijan Kalvan Parishad v. Union Of India &
Ors., (supra) and further order of clarification dated 21st
January, 1987, the petitioners were entitled to the same
treatment. However the grievances of the petitioners were
not redressed and a view was taken by authorities of the
respondent/bank that there was no direction for the Govern-
ment of India for prescribing reservation policy for offi-
cers cadre and that they were following the selection method
or promotion in the case of Officers posts.
The Union of India flied a counter affidavit contesting the
stand taken by the petitioners. So far as the bank is con-
cerned they did not any separate reply in detail but took
the stand that the Syndicate banks was a Nationalised bank
and was under the Administrative control of the Government
of India, Banking Division as such the bank is guided in the
discharge of its functions by any directions issued by B-
anking Division, Ministry of Finance, Government of India
from one to time. Reference was made to Regulation 17(1)
according to which promotions to all grades of officers in
the Bank were required to be made in accordance with the
policy laid down by the Board from to time having regard to
the guidelines of the Government, if any. in view of these
circumstances it was stated in the counter affidavit that
they fully adopt all the submissions of fact and law made by
the Government of India in its counter affidavit.
We have heard Mr. R. Sachar, Learned counsel for the peti-
tioner. K.N. Bhat, for the Syndicate Bank and Mr. R. Rajap-
pa, for the Union of India. It may be stated at the outset
that though the union of India in its reply had taken
several grounds for contesting the petition, but the Learned
Counsel appearing for the Union of
721
India conceded before us and made a statement that he was
not pressing the grounds taken in the counter affidavit
filed by the Union of India and they would abide by any
directions given by this Hon’ble Court. Mr. Bhat appearing
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10
on behalf of the Bank also submitted that the Bank was bound
by the decisions taken by the Government of India, Ministry
of Finance Banking Division and the Bank was not at fault in
not granting relief to the petitioners in as much as the
Government of India was not clear in its policy of reserva-
tion. The attitude of the Government of India is clearly
discernible from its counter affidavit filed in the present
case. It was thus prayed that this Hon’ble Court should not
hold the Bank responsible for not granting an appropriate
relief to the petitioners at its own end and for dragging
the petitioners unnecessarily in this litigation.
Mr. Sachar contended that the Ministry of State for
Finance, Government of India in his letter dated November
22, 1986 addressed to Shri Banwari Lal Bairva Member of
Parliament made it clear that during the course of discus-
sions between the officials of the bank and banking division
regarding reservations for SC ST employees of the Indian
Overseas Bank, it was revealed that the procedure followed
by the bank for effecting promotions, within the officers
cadre was the one falling within the categorisation of
seniority. The bank was immediately advised to maintain
rosters even for these promotions within the officers cadre
and to provide for reservations for the SCs STs. It was
further mentioned in the above letter that the bank accepted
its mistake and had already agreed to provide for reserva-
tions and also to calculate the backlog from 1978 when the
reservations in promotions were first introduced in the
banks. In another letter issued by the Banking division of
the Ministry of Finance dated 28.11:86 addressed to the
Chairmen and Managing Directors of 20 nationalised banks it
was mentioned as under:
"It may be recalled that instructions were issued by the
Government on 3.5.80 advising banks to apply the provisions
of carry forward, interchange, and lapsing of vacancies in
promotions also because of certain factors even though
strictly speaking these provisions are not applicable to
promotions by selection. In doing so, the posts filled ’by
selection method were specifically categorised as those
where promotions are made on the basis of a written examina-
tion followed by interview and/or on the basis of the inter-
view. On the other hand promotions based on the
722
assessment of the confidential reports of the officers were
classified as those based on seniority subject to fitness."
The banks were, therefore, requested to review the
method of promotions followed by them and ensure that wher-
ever the rosters are to be maintained for determining the
number of vacancies reserved for SC/ST, this be done scrupu-
lously. Mr. Sachar brought to our notice the promotion
policy in respect of officers of the Syndicate Bank issued
on 17.9.85 annexed with the writ petition as Annexure-L at
point number 3 follows:
3. "The Promotion Policy identifies the following four
factors as relevant for ascertaining the suitability of
officers for promotion from one scale to another:
(a) Seniority for promotions upto SMGS IV
(b) Educational and Professional Qualifications for movement
to Middle Management Grade Scale II only.
(c) Performance in the grade/scale.
(d) Potential as identified in the interview for movement to
Middle Management Grade Scale III and above".
It was thus submitted that from a reading of the two
letters dated 22.11.86 and 28.11.86 together with the promo-
tion policy issued by the Syndicate Bank it was clear that
for promotions from one scale to another upto SMG IV was
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10
based on seniority and the Syndicate Bank as such ought to
have made promotions upto SMGS IV by giving benefit of
reservation to SC/STs in the employment of the bank.
It was also contended by Mr. Sachar that upto 1979, the
Syndicate Bank made promotions of officers from one scale to
another purely on the basis of officers completing five
years of service as on 31st December of previous year. No
promotions were made in 1979, 1980 and 1981. Since 1982 the
promotions within the officers cadre were being made on the
basis of the following policy:
The minimum eligibility service and factor weightage
shall be as follows:
723
Movement Minimum Points Points Maximum Maximum
from eligibility for the points points
service as senio- educa- for for
on 31st rity tional perfor- potential
December & Profe- mance as iden-
of Previous ssional in the fied in
Year qualifi- scale the inter
cation view
JMGS to 7 years in 60 10 30 Nil
MMGS II JMGS I
MMGS II 5 years in 50 - 30 20
to MMGS MMGS II
III
MMGS III 5 years in 20 - 50 30
to SMGS MMGS III
IV
SMGS IV 3 years in - 60 40
to TEGS V SMGS IV
SMGS V to 2 years in - - 60 40
TEGS VI SMGS V
TEGS VI to 3 years in - - 60 40
TEGS VII TEGS VI
It was contended that from the above policy, it would be
clear that there was no written test and interview for
promotions from Gr. I to Gr. II and that 60% of the marks
had been fixed for seniority. The above policy further makes
it clear that the seniority was considered a predominant
factor. The Government of India in its office memorandum
dated 27.11.72 had provided for reservation of 15% and 71/2%
for SC and ST candidates respectively, and the Government of
India Banking Division, had made the reservation policy
applicable in the case of promotional posts also vide its
D.O. Letter No. 10/24/74-SCT (B) dated 31.12.77. Thus, there
remains no ambiguity and the respondent bank ought to have
given benefit of reservation policy from 1st January, 1978
to the members of SCs/STs in the cadre of officers. Mr.
724
Sachar also submitted that as already mentioned above in the
matter of employees of the Indian Overseas Bank rosters for
calculating the vacancies reserved for the SCs/STs had been
applied in the case of promotions within the officers cadre.
It was further argued that the principle of contemporanea ex
position i.e. interpreting the statute or any other document
by reference to the exposition it has received from contem-
porary authority, has to be applied in case of employees of
the Syndicate Bank also while effecting promotions within
the officers cadre. Reliance in support of the above conten-
tion is placed on Desh Bandhu Gupta & Company & Others v.
Delhi Stock Exchange Assn. Ltd., [1979] 3 SCR 373.
We find no force in the above contention of Mr. Sachat.
A perusal of the promotion policy goes to show that for the
purpose of promotions in the cader of officers from JMGS to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10
MMGS II and from MMGS II to MMGS III and then upto scale
VII, is not based on seniority alone. Apart from the points
for seniority other factors based on selective process were
also important and as such it cannot be held that such
promotions in the higher scale were based solely on seniori-
ty. A perusal of the criteria laid down in the promotion
policy already extracted above clearly goes to show that
apart from points for seniority, points for educational and
professional qualification, points for performance in the
scale and points for potential as identified in the inter-
view have also to be assessed while making appointment by
promotion. Merely because in the case of promotion from JMGS
to MMGS II points for seniority being mentioned as 60, it
cannot be said that such promotion in scale II may be con-
sidered as promotion otherwise than by the method of selec-
tion. In our view unless the promotion is based on seniority
alone and other factors based on merit such as educational
and professional qualifications, performance in the scale,
written examination or interview have no material bearing it
cannot be considered as a promotion based on seniority. A
perusal of the policy shows that it is a hybrid system of
promotion in which upon scale IV points are given for sen-
iority as well as for other factors also which are based on
a sort of selection process depending upon the educational
qualifications, performance in the scale and interview.
While in the case of promotion from scale IV to scale VII
there are no points given for seniority at all. Thus taking
in view the entire scheme of promotion policy, we think that
promotions in the officers cadre from JMGS I to Scale VII
shall be considered as promotions on selection basis. Howev-
er the rule of reservation for SCs/STs will apply to ap-
pointments made by promotion on selection basis, subject to
a procedure somewhat different from usual procedure adopted
in filling up
725
posts reserved for SCs and STs on selection basis alone for
appointments to be made by direct recruitment.
Mr. Sachar then submitted that in case the above policy
of promotion is not considered as based on seniority, or
otherwise than by selection, the petitioners are to be
governed by the principles already laid down in Bihar State
Harijan Kalyan Parishad v. Union of India & Ors., (supra).
It was contended that in identical case though relating to
employees of Steel Authority of India Ltd., this Court
interpreted paragraph 9 of the Presidential directive in the
case of promotions within group ’A’ which provided as under:
"In promotions by selection to posts within Group ’A’ which
carry an ultimate salary of Rs.2250 per month, or less, the
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe officers, who are senior
enough in the zone of consideration for promotion so as to
be within the number of vacancies for which the Select List
has to be drawn up, would be included in that list provided
they are not considered unfit for promotion. Their position
in the select list would, however be the same as assigned to
them by the Departmental Promotion Committee on the basis of
their record of service. They would not be given, for this
purpose one grading higher than the grading otherwise as-
signable to them on the basis of their record of service".
It was held in the above case that a close perusal of
the directive and in particular paragraph 9 which deals with
"concessions to employees of SC/ST in promotions by selec-
tion methods" ’makes it abundantly clear that the rule of
reservation is also applicable to promotion by selection to
posts within group ’A’ which carry ultimate salary of
Rs.2250 per month or less but that the procedure is slightly
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10
different than in the case of other posts.
We find force in this alternative submission made by Mr.
Sachat. Even though the promotional posts are based on
selection method, the rule of reservation will apply to
posts within group ’A’ and the benefit of reservation policy
to members of SC and ST cannot be denied on the ground that
promotional posts are to be filled by method of selection.
We find no distinction in the case of employees in the
officers group in JMGS I of the Bank from the officers
falling in group ’A’ under the Steel Authority of India
Ltd., for the purpose of applying reservation policy. Gov-
ernment of India committed a clear mistake in
726
not applying the principle already decided in Bihar State
Harijan Kalyan Parishad’s case (supra) to the employees of
the Syndicate Bank and in not giving a clear direction in
this regard to the management of Syndicate Bank. There can
be no manner of doubt that the management of the Syndicate
Bank was not at fault as they were bound by the instructions
and policy laid down by the Banking division of the Finance
Ministry of the Government of India and in the absence of a
clear direction from the Government of India, it was not
possible for them to grant relief to the SC/ST employees of
the bank. As already mentioned above the Union of India had
wrongly taken a contrary stand in its counter filed to the
present petition, and clearly in derogation to the principle
already decided in the case of Bihar State Harijan Kalyan
Parishad, (supra) by this Court.
In the result this petition is allowed. The orders of
the respondents dated 15th June, 1987 and 25th June, 1987
are declared as illegal. It is further decided that though
group ’A’ posts are selection posts still the reservation
policy is applicable to such posts and the respondents are
directed to compute the backlog of untilled reserved quota
available to the SC/ST officers in the promotional posts
with effect from 1.1. 1978, the date of introduction of
reservation policy in the respondent bank. The respondents
are further directed to grant promotion to the SC/ST employ-
ees of the Syndicate Bank with all consequential benefits of
salary and allowances from the respective dates w.e.f. which
they should have been promoted, after applying the roster
system in their favour. We grant three months’ time to carry
out these directions.
The-petitioners would be entitled to costs to be paid by
the respondent Union of India.
R.N.J. Petition
allowed.
727