Back
2025 Supreme(All) 2851
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
IRSHAD ALI, J.
Anil Kishore - Appellant
Versus
State Bank Of India Central Office Madam - Respondent
Civil Misc Review Application No.110 of 2024
Decided on : 01-07-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Amit Kr. Singh Bhadauriya, Ram Achal Gupta
For the Respondent: Anurag Srivastava
Court granted a review allowing a promotion and consequential benefits based on merit, affirming the rights of applicants overlooked for promotions.
Headnote:(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Right to promotion - Mandamus - Review of prior judgment to grant consequential relief - Court emphasizes the importance of merit in promotions, stating that the review applicant is entitled to be deemed promoted and all consequential benefits from the date of lesser merit promotions. (Paras 2, 9)
(B) Review Application - Grounds for review based on failure to grant consequential relief and material oversight by the previous judgment - Court indicates a merit in granting relief pending a decision on a special appeal against previous ruling. (Paras 4, 8)
Facts of the case:
Review applicant sought promotion as Trainee Officer dated back to 01.08.2001, arguing that promotions were granted to less meritorious candidates without interviewing him, thereby requiring retrospective benefits.
Findings of Court:
Court finds merit in granting the requested consequential relief for the review applicant.
Issues: Whether the review application justifies granting consequential relief after a prior judgment, particularly in light of promotions based on merit.
Ratio Decidendi: Court ruled that the applicant should be deemed promoted based on merit over lesser candidates under the principle of fair chance in promotions and clarified that the review applicant's entitlements must be honored.
Result: Review application allowed.
Key Points: - The review application granted consequential relief and deemed promotion for the review applicant based on merit, from the date of lesser merit promotions (!) (!) - The court allowed the review application, finding merit in granting consequential relief and emphasizing merit in promotions (!) (!) - The writ petition’s previous decision is superseded to the extent of granting a deemed promotion and associated consequential benefits (arrears, seniority, etc.) (!) (!) - The review grounds include failure to grant consequential relief and material oversight in the prior judgment (!) (!) - The relief includes mandamus to declare deemed promotion and entitlement to consequential benefits from 01.08.2001 and associated salary/posting adjustments (!)
What is the entitlement of the review applicant to consequential relief and deemed promotion based on merit?
What grounds justify granting consequential relief in a review application challenging a prior writ judgment?
What is the court's holding regarding the effect of merit-based promotions on the review applicant’s rights and benefits?
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction and participants. (Para 1) |
| 2. grounds for review and specific relief sought. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. legal arguments regarding the review application. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. issues raised about prior judgments and appeals. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. final orders and grant of relief. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT :
Irshad Ali, J.
1. Heard Sri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Amit Kumar Singh Bhadauriya, learned counsel for the review applicant, Sri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Gopal Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
2. The ground for review in the present review application is that once the main writ petition i.e. Writ A No.6758 of 2004; Anil Kishore Gupta Vs. State Bank of India through its C.G.M. and 4 others, was decided finally and was allowed quashing the impugned orders, why the consequential relief may not be granted to him.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the review applicant invited attention of this Court on the prayer made in the subsequent writ petition i.e. Writ A No.6145 of 2002; Anil Kishor Vs. State Bank of India thru Chairman and 3 others , which is as follows:
"i) by a suitable writ, order of direction or by a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus hold and declare that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been promoted as Trainee Officer with effect from 01.08.2001 the date when persons of lesser merit than to him were promoted, as such, by the respondent - Bank, without calling the petitioner to appear in the interviews-in pursuance of the written Exams held on 10.03.2002 and shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits as a result thereof;
ii) by a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus command the respondent authorities:
a) to issue formal promotion order in favour of the petitioner - promoting him as Trainee Officer with effect from 01.08.2001, as a result of the above deemed promotion and issue posting orders to the said effect forthwith;
b) to allow the petitioner all consequential benefits as a result of the above viz. arrears of pay, seniority, etc. etc.
c) to pay the petitioner interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the aforesaid arrears of pay etc.
iii) by a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of interim Mandamus command the respondent authorities to at least issue, forthwith, formal posting orders in favour of the petitioner as Trainee Officer, and pay him his current and future salary of the said post of Trainee Officer, without any interruption or hindrance, whatsoever in view of his deemed promotion as Trainee Officer with effect from 01.08.2001;
iv) to issue such other writ, order or direction as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and, in the interest of justice, and v) to allow exemplary costs of the petition, to the petitioner, against the respondents."
4. Sri Gopal Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that in view of provisions contained under Chapter 9 Rule XIV of Rule of the Court, the entire facts and circumstances are to be placed and the diligence in regard to overlook the material on record only, the review application can be maintained.
5. Sri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submitted that in view of judgment in the case of State Bank of India Vs. K.K. Gautam, the judgment passed in the writ petition is not sustainable in law. The argument advanced by Sri Gopal Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.5 is also misplaced as while deciding the review petition, the material placed before the Court, if not considered, then it is left open to the Court to decide the review petition in accordance with that.
6. Writ A No.6758 of 2004 was allowed by means of judgment rendered in the present case and connected Writ A No.6145 of 2002 was also allowed but no consequential relief has been granted to the petitioner, therefore, in view of above material, the consequential prayer made in paragraph 3 of t
