C.W.P. No.3448 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.3448 of 1988 Date of Decision.17.05.2010 M.L. Zakhmi S/o Shri Lekh Ram ........Petitioner Versus State Bank of Patiala, Head Office, Patiala through its Managing Director . ...Respondent Present: Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Davesh Moudgil, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 26.08.1986 denying to him a consideration for promotion from MMGS-II to MMGS-III. It is seen from the records that out of a total of 155 eligible persons, who have been called for interview for effecting promotion to 62 vacancies in MMGS-III existing as on 01.04.1985, 60 persons had been promoted and in respect of two persons, the results had been put in sealed covers since some proceedings had been pending against them. Out of persons, who had not been promoted, 48 of them had submitted their representations for review of their cases. It appears from the noting C.W.P. No.3448 of 1988 -2- of the Managing Director that the matter shall be placed before the Board for consideration and for passing such orders as it deem fit. At a meeting held on 18.07.1986, the Executive Committee has taken a decision to reject all the appeals by the following observations:- “Reviewed the cases of 48 officers in Middle Management Grade Scale-II on the basis of appeals made by them, taking the relevant date and after discussions, it was resolved that there was no merit in their request for review of the earlier decision of the Interview Committee not to promote them to the cadre of Middle Management Grade Scale-III.” 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that on regular performance appraisals, the petitioner was always rated high and he had also secured certificates of appreciation of his work in the post as he held as MMGS-II. The argument of the learned Senior Counsel is that a promotion could have been considered only on the basis of his performance at the feeder post and when a plea for review of the decision had been made, there ought to have been a relative appraisal of the claims of persons who had been promoted with persons who had been denied the promotion. A sweeping statement that there was no merit in the request would only mean that there was no application of mind in the decision that they ultimately took. 3. The writ petition had been filed in the year 1988 and unfortunately for the petitioner, the matter comes up for hearing C.W.P. No.3448 of 1988 -3- only now. Even on the date when the case is posted for hearing, there is no representation for the respondents in spite of notice. In a situation where the issue is to the consideration of a candidate to a promotion post on merit, the Court's decision cannot exceed beyond directing the appointing authority to consider the relevant materials and make a fair appraisal. The Court's decision could never supplant an administrative decision that will be done on the basis of records and by an interview. While under the normal circumstances, it should have been possible for me to refer the matter again for consideration before the Executive Committee to reappraise the petitioner's plea and take an appropriate decision, it seems a futile exercise to reopen what was buried fathoms deep in the year 1986. 24 year later, to ask the authorities to reappraise the petitioner's ability to hold the promotion post, is an exercise in futility and its efficacy is lost in the passage of time. A cliched expression of justice being denied by a delay in dispensation obtains to fore in a situation like this. The petitioner's case, which could have obtained a different dispensation if the case had been taken 24 year earlier cannot be granted to the petitioner mechanically, for it shall be unrealistic to consider the petitioner's suitability to promotion for the period when he actually continued his service in the same post and probably retired also. If it was a case of a promotion on the basis of seniority and the denial to such promotion post had occurred, it might have become possible to correct the error by a judicial intervention. If it was through a selection process, the time when the relief is granted is invariably a relevant C.W.P. No.3448 of 1988 -4- consideration, for what was denied to the petitioner in the year 1986 cannot stand for consideration now. 4. The writ petition is under the circumstances dismissed as it is not in my view possible to direct the reappraisal. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 17, 2010 Pankaj*