Placement in a reserve list does not create an indefeasible right to promotion against vacancies.

The Petitioner, a Deputy General Manager of Bank of Baroda, participated in the 2016 promotion exercise from TEG/S-VI to TEG/S-VII. Three officers were selected, fifteen were placed on a Wait List, and a three-officer Reserve List was prepared for possible additional vacancies during the year. The Petitioner stood first on the Reserve List, which was valid until 1 April 2017.

He claimed that vacancies arose on 1 December 2016, 17 February 2017 and 31 March 2017, and that he was consequently entitled to promotion as General Manager with effect from 1 December 2016.

After making representations and participating unsuccessfully in later promotion exercises, he filed the present writ petition seeking promotion and consequential benefits.

The Bank contended that inclusion in the Reserve List did not create a right to promotion and that the Promotion Policy permitted vacancies to remain unfilled and left operation of the list to management’s discretion.

Whether the mere existence of vacancies during the currency of the Petitioner’s Reserve List created an enforceable right to promotion.

Whether the Bank’s decision not to operate the Reserve List was contrary to the Promotion Policy, discriminatory, mala fide, or inconsistent with the sanctioned strength of General Managers.

Whether the Petitioner’s reliance on past practice and the decisions in K. Manjusree, Umesh Chandra Shukla and Hemani Malhotra established a right to promotion.

The Court applied Clauses 11.8–11.10 of the Bank’s Promotion Policy: management may keep vacancies unfilled notwithstanding their availability; a Wait List may be maintained against vacancies arising during the year; and the Chairman/Managing Director or MD & CEO “may” release promotions from the list, retaining discretion to cancel it for recorded reasons.

The Court relied on Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47, for the principle that the existence of vacancies or inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, although decisions not to fill vacancies must be bona fide and based on appropriate reasons.

It also applied State Bank of India v. Mohd. Mynuddin, (1987) 4 SCC 486, holding that promotion to a selection post is not claimable as of right and that suitability is ordinarily for the management or Selection Committee to assess, absent bias, mala fides or other vitiating circumstances.

The Court distinguished K. Manjusree v. State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512, Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India, (1985) 3 SCC 721, and Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi, (2008) 7 SCC 11, because those cases concerned impermissible changes to the selection criteria or field of competition after commencement of the process.

The Court held that the Reserve List, even assuming it was an extension of the Policy’s Wait List, did not make promotion automatic upon the occurrence of a vacancy.

Clause 11.8 expressly authorised the Bank to leave vacancies unfilled, while Clause 11.10 stated that promotions from the list “may” be released, thereby preserving administrative discretion.

The requirement of recording reasons applied to cancellation of the list and did not require a separate order whenever the Bank chose not to fill an individual vacancy; in any event, the Reserve List was never selectively operated or cancelled and simply expired on its stated date.

No discriminatory treatment was shown because none of the candidates below the Petitioner on the Reserve List was promoted.

The sealed-cover promotion of another officer arose from the preceding promotion exercise and did not establish the Petitioner’s entitlement.

Nor did the proposed cadre strength of 46 General Managers require all posts to be continuously occupied, particularly when the Promotion Policy permitted vacancies to remain unfilled.

The allegations of mala fides and reliance on past practice were unsupported by evidence.

The writ petition seeking promotion as General Manager with effect from 1 December 2016 and consequential benefits was dismissed.