1999 Supreme(Raj) 1411
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.
Arun Godika - Appellant
Versus
Bank of Baroda and others - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4415 of 1988.
Decided On : 24-09-1999
The denial of promotion to the petitioner was not arbitrary, the categorization of vacancies was justified, and the ratings in the performance appraisal report were not arbitrary or mala fide.
Headnote:
PROMOTION - DENIAL - LEGALITY - BANK EMPLOYEE - PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL REPORT - RATINGS - CATEGORIZATION OF VACANCIES - POLICY CIRCULAR - DELAY - EQUITY - ARBITRARINESS - MALAFIDE - WRIT PETITION - DISMISSAL:
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a bank employee, challenged the supersession of his candidature for promotion to Middle Management Grade II (MMGS II) in 1985 and 1988, alleging that his performance appraisal ratings were unfairly downgraded, resulting in his denial of promotion. He sought a direction to promote him to MMGS II and identify vacant posts as per the bank's policy circular.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was aware of the promotion procedure before appearing for the written test and could not challenge it later. The denial of promotion was not arbitrary, and the petitioner's case was fairly considered. The categorization of vacancies by the bank was justified, and the ratings in the performance appraisal report were not arbitrary or mala fide.
Issues: 1. Whether the denial of promotion to the petitioner was arbitrary and illegal. 2. Whether the categorization of vacancies by the bank was defective and unjustified. 3. Whether the ratings in the performance appraisal report were arbitrary and mala fide.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on precedents holding that candidates who are aware of the promotion procedure cannot challenge it later if they are not selected. 2. The court held that the categorization of vacancies by the bank was not without justification, and the petitioner could not challenge it after appearing in the examinations and being declared unsuccessful. 3. The court found no illegality in the ratings given in the performance appraisal report and no malafide was pleaded against the reviewing authority.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the denial of promotion to the petitioner was not arbitrary, the categorization of vacancies was justified, and the ratings in the performance appraisal report were not arbitrary or mala fide.
JUDGMENT
1. - The petitioner has approached this court with the prayer that supersession of the petitioner's candidature for promotion to the Middle Management Grade II (MMGS II) in the year 1985 and 1988 and orders dated October 13, 1986 and Sept. 26, 1988 resulting in rejection of his appeals be quashed and respondents be directed to promote the petitioner to the MMGS II against the vacancies of 1985 and in any case against the vacancies of 1988. The respondents be also directed to identify the vacant posts of MMGS II as eleven to be filled from the officers in the Personnel Department of the Bank (who were eligible in the year 1987) in terms of the policy circular of the Bank dated May 22, 1982.
2. Grievance of the petitioner is that his service record is throughout satisfactory but he got serious apprehension that the ratings in his performance appraisal might have been damaged by the then Regional Manager Mr. J.A. Pandiya who was reviewing authority of the petitioner during the year 1934. His rating was done `C' in 1984 and although for 1985 the reporting officer had rated him `B' the Assistant General Manager acted as final reviewing authority tonned it down as `C' without any reason whatever and without taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner had not worked under him even for a day. On account of performance appraisal report of the petitioner he was denied promotion and was superseded.
3. The respondents in their written statement averred that examinations for promotion from Junior Management Grade Scale I to Middle Management Grade Scale II were held in the year 1985. The petitioner also appeared in the said examinations. Since he could not qualify, his name was not included in the list of selected candidates. Thereafter an appeal was filed by him, which was also rejected by the appellate authority on the ground that there was no substance in the appeal. Whole record of the petitioner was examined by the appellate authority and thereafter this decision was taken. Promotion from Junior Management Grade Scale I to Middle Management Grade Scale II, factors of seniority, qualifications, written test, performance and potentials were given weight age. Since the petitioner could not obtain the required marks in 1985 and 1987 he was not promoted to Middle Management Grade Scale II. As per the record of the Bank as on 1.1.1987, the total number of Personnel Officers in Middle Management Grade Scale it were and as per the categorisation of posts of various officers, the number of posts of the Personnel Officers for the year 1987 were 61. The respondents therefore declared only four vacancies. The principles laid down in promotion policy and the provisions of circular dated May 22, 1982 were followed in letter and spirit by the Bank. The reviewing authority in year 1984 awarded ratings to the petitioner without any bias after examining the performance on the basis of the guide lines/standards prescribed and it is not necessary for an officer to directly work under the final reviewing authority. The reviewing authority get over all information about the performance and potentials of all officers under his control and authority, on the basis of which ratings are given. The petitioner has not made Mr. J.A. Pandiya as party in the writ petition. The system of rating is based on close system as such the same cannot be disclosed before a candidate.
4. The petitioner submitted rejoinder to the reply and pleaded that his so case was not considered fairly.
5. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully weighed the material on record.
6. Undisputably the petitioner was made aware of the procedure for promotion before he sat for the written test. Therefore, he cannot turn around and contend later when he found he was not selected by challenging the procedure.In Union of India and another v. N. Chandrasekharan and others, (1988) 3 SCC 694 their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated thus :
It is not in dispute that
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
