The main legal point established in the judgment is that the evaluation of an officer's performance for promotion must strictly adhere to the guidelines and policies prescribed, and refusal of promotion based solely on a performance report without proper evaluation is illegal.

Headnote:
Promotion - State Bank of India - Circular dated March 25, 1991 - 9.1, 10, 11, 12.1 - The court found that the petitioner was in the zone of consideration for promotion to MMG Scale-III as per the provisions of the Circular dated March 25, 1991. The court also highlighted the evaluation process and the importance of following guidelines in the promotion process.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought promotion to MMG Scale-III in the State Bank of India but was refused based on performance report. The petitioner challenged the refusal, alleging that the performance report was written by unauthorized officers and did not accurately reflect his performance.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner was indeed in the zone of consideration for promotion and that the evaluation of his performance was not conducted in accordance with the guidelines. The court concluded that the refusal of promotion based solely on the performance report without proper evaluation was illegal.
Issues: The issues revolved around the refusal of promotion to the petitioner and the validity of the performance evaluation process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evaluation of an officer's performance for promotion must be conducted in accordance with the guidelines and policies prescribed. Refusal of promotion based solely on a performance report without proper evaluation is illegal.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondent authority to review the petitioner's case for promotion afresh, re-examine and re-write the ACRs/APR if necessary, and evaluate the petitioner's case for placement in the zone of selection within three months.

D. BISWAS, J.—

The question to be answered in this writ petition is whether the refusal of promotion to the petitioner, an officer in MMG Scale-II of the State Bank of India to the next higher grade, MMG Scale-Ill was in accordance with the provisions of the Rules and Regulation of the bank and, if not, the relief to which the petitioner is entitled to.

2. The petitioner after completion of Post Graduate studies in Science appeared in the Probationary Officers Examination. He was selected and appointed as such in the month of December, 1993. His initial posting was at Agartala Branch of the State Bank of India in the State of Tripura. On successful completion of the probation period of two years, he was confirmed in the Junior Management Scale-I. In November, 1989 the petitioner was promoted to the Middle Management Grade-II. On completion of three years of service in the Middle Management Grade-II, the petitioner became eligible for consideration for promotion to the MMG Scale-Ill as per Circular dated March 25, 1991, the list of officers selected for promotion was published on 15.12.1992 and the petitioner, to his utter surprise found that he was not selected. He submitted an appeal and review application to the appropriate authority. These went in vain. In the meantime, in August 1994, another list of officers selected for promotion to MMG Scale-Ill was published. This time also the petitioner was not selected for promotion. The petitioner again preferred an appeal to the appropriate^ authority on 6.9.1994. Because of in ordinance delay in the disposal of the appeal, the petitioner approached this Court for quashing of the ACR/ Performance report allegedly written by the officer without jurisdiction and for appropriate direction for consideration of his case for promotion with effect from November 1, 1992.

3. The Bank Authorities in their affidavit-in-opposition took the stand that eligibility for promotion depends on performance report. The petitioner failed to secure the minimum cut off mark and, therefore, was not in the zone of selection for promotion. It is contended that the "performance of the petitioner for last 6 years, ACR/PAS for the last 5 years were screened by the Screening Committee to form a zone of selection for promotion to MMG-Scale-III with effect from 1.11.93". They also denied that ACR/PAS was written by unauthorised officer in deviation of the usual practice followed by the Bank.

4. I have heard Mr. Kamal Agarwal, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and also Mr. B. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent Bank.

5. Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per pro visions of Clause -(10) of the Circular dated March 25, 1991, the petitioner having completed three years service was in the zone of consideration for promotion to the MMG Scale-Ill, but the respondent authority did not consider his case for promotion in violation of the provisions of the aforesaid circular and the guidelines. It has been further submitted that the writ petitioner although in the zone of consideration was not called for interview by the Selection Committee. The next grievance of the writ petitioner, Mr. Agarwal highlights, is that the ACR/Performance report written by the officer without jurisdiction cannot form the basis for ousting the writ petitioner from the zone of selection.

6. The Circular dated March 25, 1991 has been annexed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition. This circular spells out the procedure to be followed in the matter of promotion to MMG Scale-Ill. The provisions relevant for the case at hand are quoted below:-

"PROMQTION TO MMG SCALE III

9.1. Eligibility Criteria

a) SERVICE

All officers in MMGS-II who fulfil any of

the following criteria will be eligible for

consideration for promotion to MMG Scale III.

i) 3 years' service in MMG Scale II with both parts of CAIIB.

ii) 4 years' service in MMG Scale II with Part I of CAIIB.

iii) 5 years' service in MMG Scale II without SAIIB qualification.

For