SBI Probationer To Be Reinstated As Karnataka HC Counts 3 Grace Marks For Exam Taken Before Probation End, Though Results Came Later

Saurabh Raj joined the State Bank of India as a Probationary Officer on 9 December 2013, subject to a two-year probation and prescribed confirmation tests.

After failing the first test, his probation was extended by six months. He earned six grace marks by passing two professional examinations during the extended period, but his retest score, including those marks, remained below the 50% threshold.

He appeared for the Mutual Fund Distributors Certification Examination (MFDCE) on 27 May 2016 and notified the Bank that day, while his extended probation ran until 6 June 2016. The result and pass certificate were issued on 10 June 2016.

The Bank terminated his service on 1 June 2016, declining to award the additional three grace marks because the result was not declared before probation expired.

The Single Judge quashed the termination and directed reinstatement with consequential benefits. The Bank appealed.

Rule 16(3) of the State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules, 1992, was invoked by the Bank as the basis for discharging a probationer who failed to meet the confirmation benchmark.

The Bank’s E-Circular dated 16 December 2014 provided three grace marks for each of specified professional qualifications; clause (viii) allowed qualifications acquired during extended probation to be added to the next confirmation-test score for candidates whose probation was extended after failing the first test.

The Court interpreted this beneficial provision purposively, holding that the formal delay in declaring results by an external testing agency should not defeat the benefit where the candidate completed the substantive steps of taking the examination during extended probation.

The Court also relied on the reasoning in Thasmitha S. v. State Bank of India, affirmed in State Bank of India v. Thasmitha S., 2016 SCC OnLine Ker 15264.

The Court held that clause (viii) governed Raj’s case because his probation had been extended after he failed the first confirmation test, and he appeared for the MFDCE examination before the extended period expired.

He had also informed the Bank of his examination on the day he took it. The later declaration of the result was an administrative delay beyond his control; the Court therefore rejected the Bank’s reliance on the general requirement that results be communicated before probation ended.

Adding three grace marks to his score of 97.83 produced 100.83 out of 200, or 50.41%, exceeding the qualifying threshold.

The Court found the termination unsustainable and saw no material distinction from Thasmitha S. merely because the result there was declared before probation expired.

It directed the Bank to reinstate Raj with all consequential benefits within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of the judgment; the parties were ordered to bear their own costs.