Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a challenge by the All India State Bank Officers Federation, a registered trade union of State Bank of India officers, against a promotional policy modification made by the bank's Central Board on 7 March 1989. The State Bank of India was established under the State Bank of India Act, 1955. Section 17 entrusts management to the Central Board, and Section 43 empowers the bank to appoint officers and determine their terms and conditions. Under Section 43, the bank framed the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules, 1975, and later the State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979 (DTCS Order). Paragraph 17 of the DTCS Order provided that promotions to all grades shall be made in accordance with the policy laid down by the Central Board or Executive Committee from time to time. The promotion policy from Senior Management Grade Scale V to Top Executive Grade Scale VI, and Scale VI to Scale VII, had been framed by the Central Board since 1975. Initially, assignment appraisals and interviews were the two components of selection. The zone of consideration varied but generally the bank followed a ratio of 1:3 or 1:4 between vacancies and candidates. On 8 June 1982, the Central Board approved a modification requiring two years' service in the previous grade for eligibility. However, because the zone of consideration was restricted, candidates actually considered had put in five to six years of service despite the two-year minimum. On 7 March 1989, the Central Board made two modifications: the eligibility criterion for promotion to Scale VI was refixed at four years' service in the previous grade instead of two, and the evaluation marks were changed from 100 for performance appraisal and 100 for interview to 150 for performance appraisal and 50 for interview. The qualifying marks for performance appraisal were raised from 60 percent to 80 percent, while interview qualifying marks remained at 60 percent. The performance appraisal system had itself evolved from annual confidential reports to a self-appraisal system introduced in 1986, gradually replacing the old system. The petitioners challenged the 7 March 1989 resolution. Their main contention, argued by senior counsel Rajindar Sachar, was that it was unreasonable not to limit the zone of consideration to three to four times the number of vacancies. They submitted that as a result a much larger number of relatively junior officers were considered and promoted, causing injustice to senior eligible officers. They produced a table showing that for filling 58 vacancies in Scale VII in 1989, 270 officers qualified with 70 percent marks in performance and 104 qualified with 60 percent in interview, out of total 498 considered; officers from 1982 and earlier batches who qualified were 102 and 62 respectively, but only 16 were promoted. The petitioners contended that if the zone of consideration had been limited, only officers from 1982 or earlier would have been considered and promoted. They placed reliance on Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, which concerned recruitment by Haryana Public Service Commission and the role of viva voce marks. The provided text ends before the respondents' arguments and the court's analysis and final decision, so the outcome and operative directions are not stated. The court was asked to consider whether the modification was arbitrary and whether removal of the zone of consideration violated principles of fairness and seniority.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotional Policy Modification - State Bank of India Act, 1955, Sections 17 and 43 and Paragraph 17 of DTCS Order 1979 - The Central Board had power to frame promotion policy from time to time under Section 43; the modifications made on 7 March 1989 raised eligibility service from two to four years and changed marks from 100/100 to 150/50 for performance appraisal and interview, with performance appraisal qualifying marks raised to 80% - The petitioners challenged these changes as unreasonable, arguing that removal of the zone of consideration led to consideration of a large number of junior officers, causing injustice to senior eligible officers - Held not stated in extracted judgment text (Paras Not mentioned). B) Service Law - Zone of Consideration and Seniority - Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 417 - Petitioners contended that the field of choice must be limited to three to four times the number of vacancies to protect senior eligible officers; data showed 498 officers considered for 58 vacancies, with only 16 of 102 senior officers from 1982 and earlier batches promoted - Reliance placed on Ashok Kumar Yadav to argue that excessive weight to interview and unrestricted zone of consideration violated fairness; Held not stated in extracted judgment text (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the modification of promotional policy by the Central Board of State Bank of India on 7th March, 1989 (raising eligibility from two to four years and altering marks for performance appraisal and interview) was unreasonable or arbitrary, particularly regarding removal of zone of consideration.
Final Decision
Not mentioned (judgment extract ends before final decision).
Law Points
- Promotion policy framed under Section 43 of State Bank of India Act
- 1955
- eligibility criteria and zone of consideration must be reasonable
- performance appraisal and interview marks for promotion
- challenge to administrative policy as arbitrary or unreasonable.
