Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Ajoy Nath Ray, J.
Deba Prasad Mukhopadhyaya
vs.
United Bank of India & Ors.
WRIT PETITION Matter No. 234 of 1995
Decided On : August 13, 1996
BANK PROMOTION - POLICY VIOLATION - INTERVIEW MARKS - EXCESSIVE ALLOCATION - ARBITRARINESS - ESTOPPEL - BIAS ALLEGATION - PROMOTION PROCESS REPETITION - APPRAISAL REPORTS CONSIDERATION - UP-TO-DATE REPORTS.
Fact of the Case:
A writ petition challenged the promotion process of certain bank officers, alleging violations of the bank's declared promotion policy and excessive allocation of marks for the interview stage, leading to arbitrariness and potential bias.
Finding of the Court:
1. The bank's promotion policy, which allocated 50% of the marks for on-the-job performance appraisal, was breached by considering appraisal reports for only three years instead of the required last three years from the time of promotion consideration. 2. The allocation of 40% marks for the interview stage was excessive and arbitrary, violating Article 14 of the Constitution, as it increased the likelihood of arbitrariness and discrimination. 3. The petitioner's participation in the interview did not estop him from challenging the unfairness of the process, as the challenge was based on Article 14 arbitrariness, against which there is no estoppel. 4. The allegation of bias against the interview panel due to the presence of the petitioner's superior was not sufficiently established to warrant further investigation.
Issues: 1. Whether the bank's promotion policy was breached by considering outdated appraisal reports? 2. Whether the allocation of 40% marks for the interview stage was excessive and arbitrary, violating Article 14 of the Constitution? 3. Whether the petitioner's participation in the interview estopped him from challenging the fairness of the process? 4. Whether the allegation of bias against the interview panel was sufficiently established?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The bank's promotion policy, which allocated 50% of the marks for on-the-job performance appraisal, was breached by considering appraisal reports for only three years instead of the required last three years from the time of promotion consideration. This breach of policy could lead to a different merit gradation being prepared on the basis of current reports than would be prepared on the basis of old reports, potentially affecting the selection of suitable candidates. 2. The allocation of 40% marks for the interview stage was excessive and arbitrary, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. Previous Supreme Court judgments had established that excessive interview marks could pave the way for arbitrariness and discrimination, and the allocation in this case exceeded the reasonable limits set by those judgments. 3. The petitioner's participation in the interview did not estop him from challenging the unfairness of the process, as the challenge was based on Article 14 arbitrariness, against which there is no estoppel. The petitioner was entitled to challenge the arbitrary nature of the interview process, even though he had participated in it. 4. The allegation of bias against the interview panel due to the presence of the petitioner's superior was not sufficiently established to warrant further investigation. The writ petition did not provide sufficient details to establish a prima facie case of bias, and therefore the court did not delve into this issue.
Final Decision: The court quashed the promotions granted based on the flawed selection process and directed the bank to repeat the interview process within six months, with the following modifications: 1. The allocation of marks for the interview stage should be reduced from 40% to 15%. 2. The appraisal reports of the upto-date past three financial years should be considered for the promotion process. The court also refused to grant a stay of operation of the order and directed all parties to act on a xerox signed copy of the order until the drawing up and perfection of the rule.
In January 1995, after some 10 years, certain officers of the United Bank of India including the writ petitioner had a chance of promotion.
2. At that time they were all in the middle management group Grade II. If promoted they would go on to Grade III.
3. Interviews were held in that month and in the result it has been found by the authorities that respondents 6-10 should be the five successful promotees. The writ petitioner, although considered, was not promoted.
4. In this writ the above selection process is challenged. The points of challenge in regard to which, I called for a reply from the respondents are two in number. The first point was that there had been a breach of the declared policy of promotion even on the showing of the Bank itself. If the bank admittedly casts aside its own declared policy and proceeds to grant promotions in breach of such declared policy then the Court should interfere.
Otherwise a declaration of a policy seriously made will have no meaning and a public authority will be entitled to act as it pleases, paving the way to arbitrariness and unfairness. .
5. The clause in the policy which was relied upon reads as follows:-
"(a) For the purpose of assessing the performance of the individual officers on-the-job, a performance appraisal system as may be adopted by the bank from time to time will be followed.
(b) Marks will be awarded for performance on the basis of overall rating for the last three years of service.
(c) The overall assessment of performance would be done on a point scale as under on the basis of the performance appraisal reports for the last three years of service
Outstanding 100 marks Very good 80 marks Good 60 marks Satisfactory 40 marks Inadequate 0 marks"
6. It is also mentioned in the promotion policy that the result of the job performance appraisal would form 50% of the marks which would be assessed against each prospective promotee candidate.
7. Thus the factor of on-the-job performance is an important one as it constitutes half the total marks which would determine the successful promotees.
8. From the affidavit of the bank and the bank officers it is the admitted position that on-the-job performance appraisal reports were considered for the years 1989-90. 1990-91 and 1991-92 only. On a first appearance it would therefore seem that between the last of the appraisal reports and the date of the interview there is practically a three years gap.
9. If we take a beneficial view in favour of the bank and construe the years of appraisal as coinciding with financial years then' also the appraisal reports for the years April 1992 to March 1993 and April 1993 to March 1994 remain unconsidered.
10. This to my mind is such a serious matter that the Court should upset promotions granted on this flawed basis even if it has the unfortunate result of reverting five successful promotees.
11. In the affidavit being the first supplementary affidavit of the bank it was submitted that the vacancies were notified in October 1993 and that those occurred in June 1993. Giving the statement its full value it would explain the absence of consideration of one year's appraisal report viz. that of 93-94 if I were to take the view that the appraisal reports and on the job performance should be considered for periods only up to the date of occurrence of the vacancies and not up to the date of the interview.
12. I cannot however take that view and I do not take it. I shall explain the reason for this a little later.
13. During arguments Mr. Basu appearing for the respondents had even one more year of non-consideration to explain. That year was the 1993-94 year. He sought to explain it with the aid of a second supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the bank. He said that the bank considered the reports which were available to the bank. Since the available reports stopped at 1992 only those were considered. But, argued Mr. Basu, the consideration was of reports upto 1992 not only for the writ petitioner but for all
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
