Important Point
It is not the function of the Court to issue directions to make certain types of remarks communicable compulsorily.

Judgment

Aftab Alam, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. A dispute over promotion to the post of Chief Manager, Rajbhasha in Senior Manager Grade, Scale IV in the Central Bank of India has brought this matter to this Court. Respondent No.5 was granted promotion to the post on 19 May 1997 in preference to the Appellant. He challenged the promotion given to the respondent before the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 1412 of 1997. The High Court dismissed the writ petition by Judgment and Order dated 24 November 2006. This appeal is filed against the Judgment of the High Court.

3. It would be useful to state at the beginning certain basic facts that are admitted or are, at any rate, undeniable as that would keep us from straying into issues that have no relevance to the dispute giving rise to this appeal. The promotion from Middle Management Grade (Scale III) to Senior Management Grade (Scale IV) is made on the principle of merit-cum-seniority from among officers who have completed five years’ satisfactory service in MMG scale III. The Bank’s Promotion Policy for Officers in clause 3.3 provides as follows.

“3.3. Promotion from Middle Management Grade Scale III to Senior Management Grade Scale IV — For promotion from Middle Management Grade Scale III to Senior Management Grade Scale IV, an officer should have completed a minimum of 5 years of satisfactory service in Middle Management Grade Scale III.”

The selection from among the eligible candidates, i.e., officers who have completed the qualifying service of five years in MMG Scale III is made on the basis of an interview and annual Performance Appraisal Ratings for three preceding years. For the promotion in question, the appellant and respondent no. 5, both of whom had completed five years’ qualifying service in MMG Scale III were assessed in the same way. In the interview both the appellant and respondent No.5 were awarded 30 marks. In the annual PARs, however, though the appellant had ‘Very Good’, same as respondent no.5 for the year 1994-95, for the other two years 1995-96 and 1996-97 he had only ‘Good’ against ‘Very Good’ obtained by respondent no.5. The remark ‘Very Good’ carried 32 marks and ‘Good’ 24 marks. Thus the Performance Appraisal Ratings of the appellant averaged out to 26.6 and that of respondent No.5 to 32. In this way, out of 100 the appellant had 56.6 marks as against 62.0 secured by respondent No.5. Respondent No.5 was accordingly selected and promoted to the post.

4. The appellant after unsuccessfully challenging the promotion granted to respondent no.5 before the Bombay High Court has brought the matter to this Court.

5. From the Judgment coming under appeal, it appears that before the High Court the promotion granted to respondent No.5 was assailed on one of the grounds that respondent No.5 did not possess the requisite educational qualifications. It was stated before the High Court that there were three options in regard to educational qualifications and respondent No.5 came in the third option that required a second class Master’s degree in Economics/Commerce in Hindi medium with English as an elective subject at Bachelor’s degree level. It was submitted before the High Court that respondent No.5 did not fulfill the requirement of educational qualifications and he was wrongly given the promotion. The High Court considered the submission and rejected it holding that respondent No.5 duly fulfilled the academic qualifications as well. Apparently, however, the High Court was not informed and it was completely overlooked that the educational qualifications referred to by the appellant pertained to the entry level post of Hindi Officer in Scale I.

6. Since the issue of the educational qualifications came under discussion in the High Court Judgment, before this Court it has been vastly expanded and turned into practically the main plank of attack to the promotion given to respondent no.5. A number of affidavits have been filed both by the appellant and respondent No.5 bring