IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 75 of 2003 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 22571 OF 1996 on the file of the High Court.) Between: ..... APPELLANT AND .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:MR.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.VENUGOPAL The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.75 OF 2003 O R D E R (Per Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) The petitioner in W.P.No.22571 of 1996 was successful in establishing before the learned single Judge that he was entitled to promotion as an Officer in Middle Management Grade Scale-II (for short, ‘MMG Scale-II’) with effect from 01.11.1993, on which date his juniors were promoted. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent in the writ petition, the State Bank of India is in appeal. The prayer of the respondent/writ petitioner before the learned single Judge was two fold – one, he sought a direction to the bank to promote him as a Trainee Officer with all attendant benefits in the event it was found that his name figured in the lists of selected candidates of Trainee Officers during the years 1978-79 and 1979-80 and secondly, in the alternative, he sought a direction to consider his case for promotion to MMG Scale-II with effect from 01.11.1993 after declaring the order dated 11.09.1995 dismissing his appeal against the denial of the said promotion as illegal, null and void. By order dated 07.10.2002, the learned single Judge directed the appellant bank to promote the respondent/writ petitioner to the post of Officer, MMG Scale-II with effect from 01.11.1993, denying him arrears of salary but holding that he was entitled to pension basing on the revised pay scales applicable to him on such promotion. The claim of the respondent with regard to his promotion as a Trainee Officer, having been rejected by the learned Judge, does not survive for consideration in this appeal. The only issue before us is with regard to his claim for promotion to MMG Scale-II with effect from 01.11.1993 on par with his juniors. The respondent/writ petitioner joined the service of the appellant bank as a Clerk on 25.01.1971. He possesses the qualifications of M.Com., with Advanced Banking Trade Policies and Controls as his specialization, along with CAIIB Part-I. He was promoted as an Officer in Junior Management Grade Scale-I (for short, ‘JMG Scale-I’) on 01.08.1983. While so, by Circular dated 15.01.1994 the appellant bank notified 166 vacancies in the posts of Officer, MMG Scale-II under the normal channel of promotion and 90 such vacancies under the examination channel of promotion. The rules applicable in this regard are contained in the Circular of the appellant bank dated 21.03.1991. As per the said Circular, two channels are provided for promotion to MMG Scale-II viz., normal channel and examination channel. The normal channel provides for promotion against seniority, while the examination channel accelerates promotion on the basis of merit. The ratio to be maintained between the normal and examination channels is 65 : 35 of the vacancies available in a particular year. In the present case, we are concerned with the normal channel of promotion. The Circular provides that any officer in JMG Scale-I who has put in a minimum of ten years of service as on the effective date of promotion would be eligible for promotion. Certain stipulations with regard to rural service and operational service are also provided in the Circular. It is an admitted fact that the respondent/writ petitioner fulfilled the requirement in so far as the length of service is concerned. The Circular provides under Guideline 3 that all such officers who fulfill the eligibility criteria aforestated under the normal channel would form the ‘zone of consideration’. Under Guideline 5.1 it is provided that all the officers in the normal channel who form the ‘zone of consideration’ would be evaluated as per the parameters given in Annexure-I on the basis of marks secured by the officers and the number of officers equal to 1½ times the number of vacancies ear-marked for the normal channel would form the ‘zone of selection’. Guideline 6 provides that all the officers who form the ‘zone of selection’ (under both channels) would be interviewed by an Interview Committee. Guideline 7.1 provides that the final merit list under each channel would be drawn up on the basis of the marks secured by the officers in the ‘zone of selection’ under various parameters. The cut-off mark would be determined by the actual number of vacancies finalized at the time of declaration of the promotions and the officers securing the equivalent to or above the cut-off mark would qualify for promotion. It would be relevant to note the parameters detailed in Annexure-I, on the basis of which the officers in the normal channel are to be evaluated so as to come within the ‘zone of selection’ under Guideline 5.1. Annexure-I provides for the marking system and so far as the normal channel of promotion is concerned, it states as follows: (A) PROMOTION TO MMG SCALE-II PARAMETER NORMAL CHANNEL EXAMI- NATION CHANNEL 1. Written Examination -- 2. Performance (for 3 years) 50 3. Confidential Reports/PAS ratings (for 3 years) 20 4. Professional qualification (CAIIB) 10 5. Interview 20 T o t a l 100 The promotions to MMG Scale-II were to be effected from 01.11.1993, by which date the respondent/writ petitioner had completed the requisite ten years of service. He also had the necessary rural and operational service as stipulated in the Circular. But, he was not called for the interview while his juniors were interviewed and promoted. Details were furnished by the respondent/writ petitioner of the candidates who were junior to him but were called for the interview and thereafter promoted. He stood at Sl.No.2189 in the seniority list published by the bank indicating the seniority as on 01.01.1998. While so, his juniors who stood at Sl.Nos.2383, 2352, 2238, 2190, 2298, 2700 and 2721 were not only called for the interview, but were also promoted. This action on the part of the bank was found fault with by the learned Judge, holding that the writ petitioner ought to have been called for the interview as per the guidelines indicated in the Circular and consequently, the learned Judge granted the relief aforestated. Ms.V.Uma Devi, learned counsel for the appellant bank, contended before us that the respondent/writ petitioner, though he figured in the ‘zone of consideration’, did not come within the ‘zone of selection’ as provided for in the Circular guidelines and accordingly, he had no right or entitlement to be considered for promotion. She stated that the assessment of the officers in JMG Scale-I, who came within the ‘zone of consideration’ under the normal channel, was undertaken for a total of 80 marks under the parameters - performance, confidential reports/PAS ratings and professional qualifications as stipulated in Annexure-I to the Circular guidelines and only candidates who came within the ‘zone of selection’ were subjected to the interview for 20 marks under Guideline 6 of the Circular guidelines. The selection list of officers, in the order of merit for a total of 80 marks, was produced before us and it is pointed out that the candidate at Sl.No.505 was the last one to come within the ‘zone of selection’ with 59.45 marks, while the respondent/writ petitioner figured at Sl.No.900 with a total of 45.17 marks. The learned counsel argued that the order of the learned Judge directing the bank to promote the respondent/writ petitioner with effect from the date his juniors were promoted is therefore unsustainable on facts and in the light of the Circular guidelines. We find ourselves unable to accept the stand taken by the appellant bank as put-forth by its learned counsel. The Circular guidelines are clear and categorical in their import and intent and require no convoluted interpretation. The ‘zone of consideration’ is defined to include all officers who qualify in terms of the eligibility criteria stipulated for promotion to MMG Scale-II under the normal channel in terms of the requisite years of service. There is no difficulty in so far as this aspect is concerned as the respondent/writ petitioner admittedly qualified to be counted within the ‘zone of consideration’. With regard to the ‘zone of selection’, Guideline 5.1 reads as under: “5.1. ‘zone of selection’: a) Normal Channel: All officers who form the zone of consideration as defined in paragraph 3 above, will be evaluated on parameters, given in Annexure-I. On the basis of marks secured by the officers, the number of officers equal to 1½ times the number of vacancies earmarked for the Normal Channel, will form the ‘zone of selection’” Thereafter, officers who form the ‘zone of selection’ in both channels are required to be interviewed as per Guideline 6. The parameters under which the officers in the ‘zone of consideration’ are to be evaluated are provided in Annexure-I. Annexure-I, as detailed herein above, provides for evaluation for a total of 100 marks including an interview for 20 marks. In the light of these clear guidelines, the approach of the bank in adopting an assessment only for 80 marks leaving out the interview from the parameters of assessment is manifestly untenable. The guidelines require the officers within the ‘zone of consideration’ to be assessed on all the parameters stipulated in Annexure- I including the interview and on the basis of the marks secured by such officers, the bank was required to form the ‘zone of selection’. After doing so, the bank was required to submit such officers who formed the ‘zone of selection’ to a further interview by an Interview Committee under Guideline 6. The argument of Ms.Uma Devi, the learned counsel, that there was no requirement for two interviews and that such an interpretation would render Guideline 6 otiose cannot be countenanced. The guidelines, being crystal clear, do not require any tortuous hermeneutic exercise on our part. The bank, having misunderstood its own guidelines, cannot seek to exclude the respondent/writ petitioner from the ‘zone of selection’ having failed to conduct an interview for all the officers within the ‘zone of consideration’ so as to arrive at the restricted ‘zone of selection’. Had the bank adopted the correct approach and interviewed all the candidates within the ‘zone of consideration’, thereby assessing them under all the parameters stipulated in Annexure-I, the resulting ‘zone of selection’ may have been altogether different from what is presently obtaining. However, taking note of the long lapse of time and also the fact that the officers, who were promoted on the basis of this defective assessment by the bank more than 16 years ago, are not before us, we are not inclined to set aside the said assessment at this late stage. In such view of the matter, the relief granted by the learned Judge i.e. promotion to the respondent/writ petitioner with effect from 01.11.1993 on par with his juniors is the most apposite and appropriate one. The learned Judge also protected the interest of the bank by denying the respondent/writ petitioner monetary benefits except for the purpose of reckoning his pension. In the light of the aforestated facts and circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judge The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ----------------------------- B.PRAKASH RAO, J. ---------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J. _____AUGUST, 2009 PGS