Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J.
Srikanta Baidya - Petitioner
Versus
IDBI Bank Limited and Others - Respondents
W.P. No. 23833(W) of 2012
Decided On : 24-12-2014
For the Petitioners:Avik Dutta and Syed Julfikar Ali, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Dipak Ghosh and Ranjay De, Advocates.
An employee has no right to be promoted as of right. He has merely the right to be considered for promotion. In the case of Ram Ashish Dixit v. Chairman, Purbanchal Grmin Bank Ltd. & Another, reported in (2013) 6 SCC 309, the Supreme Court had reiterated the settled proposition of law and held that appellant did not have any right to be promoted automatically on completion on minimum length of service. He had to be declared suitable for promotion on the criteria applicable.
Headnote:
PROMOTION - IDBI BANK - SCHEDULED CASTE - DENIAL OF PROMOTION - LACK OF QUALIFICATION AND POOR PERFORMANCE - NO VIOLATION OF SUPREME COURT DIRECTIVE - WRIT PETITION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
A Scheduled Caste employee of IDBI Bank filed a writ petition challenging the bank's denial of successive promotions from July 2002 onwards, alleging harassment, humiliation, and violation of the protection clause in the amalgamation scheme of IDBI Ltd. with IDBI Bank Ltd. The petitioner claimed that he was superseded by junior employees and that the promotional exercises were conducted in violation of the clause, which provided for no break or interruption in service and emoluments for employees of the transferor bank.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's performance in the appraisal reports for successive years was poor and that he could hardly cross the benchmark to be declared fit for promotion. The court also noted that the petitioner was called for interviews six times from 2002-2003 onwards but failed to obtain the minimum qualifying marks. The court concluded that the respondents had not violated the Supreme Court's directive in the matter of granting promotion to the petitioner or had unfairly treated him.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner, a Scheduled Caste employee of IDBI Bank, was denied successive promotions from July 2002 onwards due to harassment, humiliation, and violation of the protection clause in the amalgamation scheme of IDBI Ltd. with IDBI Bank Ltd.? 2. Whether the promotional exercises conducted by the respondents were in violation of the said clause, which provided for no break or interruption in service and emoluments for employees of the transferor bank?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner's performance in the appraisal reports for successive years was poor and that he could hardly cross the benchmark to be declared fit for promotion. 2. The court also noted that the petitioner was called for interviews six times from 2002-2003 onwards but failed to obtain the minimum qualifying marks. 3. The court concluded that the respondents had not violated the Supreme Court's directive in the matter of granting promotion to the petitioner or had unfairly treated him.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J.
By the present writ petition the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay all the financial benefits which he would have been entitled to had he been granted successive promotions from July 2002 onwards, a writ in the nature of prohibition, prohibiting the respondents from withholding the first promotion of the petitioner from July 2002 and the successive other promotions, and for other reliefs.
2. The case of the petitioner in short is that when he was working at the IDBI Ltd. which had since been converted to IDBI Bank Ltd. he had been subjected to harassment and humiliation and had been successively deprived of his promotion. Under the scheme of amalgamation of IDBI Ltd. with IDBI Bank Ltd., under Clause 2.11 a protection had been stipulated, inter alia, to the effect that all employees of the transferor bank in service on the effective date shall become employees of the transferee bank on such date without any break or interruption in service and on emoluments, benefits and terms and conditions of service which were not less favourable than those subsisting in the transferor bank. The petitioner who belongs to the Scheduled Caste community, alleges that the promotional exercises conducted by the respondents authorities have been in violation of the said clause.
3. The petitioner has been superceded by at least 2145 junior employees in the rank of Manager and by 787 juniors to the rank of Assistant General Manager. Due to arbitrary actions taken by the respondents, his juniors had been promoted to act as his Reporting Officers and Reviewing Officers.
4. On March 23, 1998, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Manager (A). Subsequently, on December 27, 2000, personal promotion to certain incumbents had been granted and a large number of employees juniors to the petitioner had been granted promotion. On January 05, 2005, Special Recruitment Drive for SCs and STs for different posts in the cadre of officers had been made. By an office circular, dated January 20, 2005, it had been decided to extend the policy of calling number of freshers for interview for filling up the vacancies in the Grade 'D' thrice the number of estimated vacancies as against the existing 1.5 times. However, for promotion to other grades the existing policy of calling fresh candidates in the multiple of 1.5 times of the estimated vacancies still continued.
5. On November 02, 2006, the promotion policy of the IDBI Bank in respect of the Group 'A' employees was promulgated where concession to SC/ST officers for promotion to 'B' and 'C' Grades had been stipulated. Although the petitioner had been granted personal promotion on March 17, 2007 by a subsequent office order dated July 27, 2007 a good number of employees who were admittedly juniors to the petitioner were promoted. On September 02, 2009, the promotional policy of the officers association had been promulgated. No reservation for the SC/ST for promotion in the officer cadre had been kept if the promotion was by a selection process. According to the petitioner due to supersession for a long time he has been made to suffer a huge amount of monetary compensation of about 50 lakhs apart from harassment and humiliation. On October 14, 2010, he was informed to have obtained a low rating from the Reporting or Reviewing officer which was considered a disqualification for being called for promotion to the next grade.
6. Clause 13.01 of the office order, dated June 21, 2011, of the concerned bank revealed that seniority had been made the criteria for promotion in the case of the SC or ST candidates, if not otherwise unfit for promotion. It was further provided in the said office order that candidates securing less than minimum qualifying marks and having an adverse remarks in the service records would be declared unfit for promotion. The petitioner was again informed that his average score was less than
