The court established that a petitioner's medical condition justifying reversion should be considered in accordance with the relevant Service Rules and guidelines, overriding the discretion of management.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has challenged an order dated May 30, 2022 passed by the Regional Manager, Durgapur the respondent no.5, declining the petitioner’s prayer for reversion to clerical cadre as per his representation dated January 29, 2021. The petitioner was appointed in the clerical post of the State Bank of India (in short, SBI). Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Manager Grade Scale (in short, JMGS) pursuant to a departmental promotion test. The petitioner was transferred by an order dated July 28, 2020 to his promotional post at Bataspur Branch, SBI. After such posting, the petitioner on January 29, 2021 made a representation to the Branch Manager, Bataspur Branch, SBI for reverting him back to his service in clerical cadre due to extreme physical and mental stress which prevented him from discharging his duty at the promotional post of Service Manager.

2. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the prayer of the petitioner was made pursuant to Rule 16(3)(b) of the State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules, 1992. A JMGS during his period of probation may be reverted to the grade or cadre from which he was promoted pursuant to 1992 Service Rules.

3. He draws the attention of this Court to the recommendation of Deputy General Manager and Circle Development Officer dated November 30, 2021 vide Memo No. PER/1764. As per the said Memo it has been clarified that the voluntary vacation of service recommended for the petitioner by an approved note dated October 19, 2021 was not in line with the recommendation of DGM and Circle Development Officer. The rejection of the appeal of the petitioner for reversion to the clerical cadre by the appropriate authority was not in terms of the recommendation. The DGM recommended that the original proposal for completion of all necessary formalities and re-submission for the proposal of reversion was to be complied with.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner was examined by medical board of the SBI. After such examination by the medical board it was recommended that the petitioner was to be involved in less stressful work. Despite the medical board’s report, the Assistant General Manager (HR) by his report dated April 26, 2022 recommended that the application for reversion is not in tune with the bank’s reversion policy.

5. Therefore, the same was proposed to be rejected. The petitioner being in unauthorized absence since January 5, 2021 was recommended for voluntary vacation of service upon furnishing of application of leave enjoyed by him, as per the guidelines of the SBI.

6. Based on such recommendation the Regional Manager issued the impugned order dated May 30, 2022.

7. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/Bank submitted that by an order dated September 19, 2022 issued by the General Manager, (Network-III), the petitioner was deemed to have voluntary vacated the service with effect from July 15, 2022. The said office order was kept in abeyance by an interim order dated September 29, 2022. He further submits that the requirement of reversion to the Grade or Cadre from which the petitioner was promoted cannot be made since it is in violation of the 1992 Service Rules. Reversion could only be made if an officer is not “fit” for confirmation. In the opinion of the Bank the petitioner was “fit” for confirmation. Therefore, there is no violation of statutory rule in not considering the prayer for revision.

8. Furthermore, he draws the attention of this Court to the guidelines issued by the Human Resources Department, State Bank of India, Corporate Centre, Mumbai. As per the said guidelines, reversion is not a matter of right but at the discretion of the management. In case the reversion is requested on medical ground, the genuineness thereof must be got checked and certified by the concerned Circle. The medical board held that the petitioner was fit for work and therefore there is no requirement of reversi