Request for Postponement of Promotional Examination Does Not Waive Exhaustion of Mandatory Limited Attempts.

The petitioner, a subordinate staff member of the State Bank of India, sought promotion to the clerical cadre. Under the Bank's rules, employees were allowed three attempts at a promotional examination

The petitioner consented to appear for his third and final attempt on 31.10.1993

Five days prior, he requested a postponement, claiming insufficient preparation time

The Bank informed him that he must either appear or provide a written withdrawal, failing which his absence would be treated as an exhausted attempt

The petitioner did not appear and instead insisted on postponement

Consequently, the Bank treated his attempt as exhausted and denied him entry to a subsequent examination held on 05.01.1994

After a 20-year delay, a reference was made to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), which ruled against the petitioner on 08.11.2024. The petitioner challenged this before the High Court under Article 226

1. Whether the Bank’s refusal to allow the petitioner to appear in the January 1994 examination constituted an unfair labour practice after he failed to appear for his third scheduled attempt in October 1993

2. Whether providing a notice of five days for a promotional examination constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice

The court applied Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regarding the adjudication of industrial disputes

It relied on the internal service rules of the State Bank of India, which limited promotional attempts to three and required specific written consent/non-consent for participation

The court also applied the principle that in the absence of specific statutory rules prescribing a minimum notice period, a five-day notice for a departmental examination is not inherently arbitrary or insufficient

The court reasoned that the petitioner was fully aware that the October 1993 examination was his final opportunity

Despite the Bank's clear instruction to either appear or formally withdraw his consent to preserve the attempt, the petitioner chose to ignore the directive and unilaterally demanded a postponement

The court found that since the petitioner did not provide a written withdrawal as required by the Bank’s communication, the Management was justified in treating the absence as an exhausted third attempt

Regarding the five-day notice period, the court held that such a timeframe is not legally insufficient for preparation in a departmental context, and the petitioner's insistence on postponement rather than following the prescribed procedure was contrary to the rules

It held that the action of the Management was legal, justified, and did not constitute an unfair labour practice

The court found no jurisdictional error or infirmity in the CGIT's order. The holding affirmed that the petitioner had exhausted all three permissible attempts and was not entitled to further relief or promotion