JUDGMENT
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. In this writ application the petitioner, inter alia, prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner from M.M. Grade Scale II to M.M. Grade Scale III with effect from 1.1.87 and from Scale III to Scale IV post with effect from 1.1.92 in view of the fact that the officers junior to the petitioner have got promotion to scale IV post. Petitioner also sought declaration that Clauses 6 and 6A of the Circular dated 1.2.1985 are ultra vires the Constitution of
India and further for a declaration that the Certificate of Associateship of the Indian Institute of Banker’s (CAIIB) cannot be equated with the qualification of the petitioner.
2. Petitioner’s case is that he passed M.Sc. Examination in Agriculture (Agronomy) from the Banaras Hindu University and did his research work and was awarded Ph.D. in agriculture in the year 1970. Petitioner’s further case is that he was appointed as Lecturer in R.B.S. College, Agra and then joined as Lecturer in the University of Udaipur (Rajas-than) in 1971. Pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent-Bank for appointment to the post of Senior Agronomist, he applied and was offered the post of Probationary Officer in the Bank. A letter of appointment was accordingly issued on 14.1.1974 and he Joined at Ranchi on 6.3.1974. It is stated that in 1981 seniority list was prepared for specialised officers of the Bank and the petitioner’s name was figured in serial No. 956 in Junior Management Grade-I. Petitioner’s further case is that in 1983 he alongwith other officers had been promoted to the M.M. Grade Scale II with effect from 1.4.1982 and his name was at serial No. 163. It is contended that for promotion from M.M. Grade Scale II to M.M. Grade scale III under the policy applicable before 1985 the only requirement was that the officers must have five years of service. But the Bank reduced number of years of service in 1985 specialised officers i.e. from five years to four years. The said change in the policy resulted in anomalies in promotion of the officers including the petitioner, as the petitioner had already opted for general cadre. The grievance of the petitioner, therefore, is that those specialised officers, who were at par with the petitioner in M.M. Grade Scale II upto four years, were benefited because they got promotion with effect from 1.1.1986 instead of 1.1.1987.
3. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent Bank, it is stated that the writ application is belated one inasmuch as according to the petitioner, his promotion from Scale II to Scale III was due in 1987 but the writ application was filed after seven years without giving any reasonable explanation. It is stated that the promotion policy framed under the Regulation 17 of the Bank of India (Officers’) Service Regulation. 1976 has been strictly followed and the said policy meets its
requirements and is considered suitable to all the officers concerned. Officers are selected for promotion strictly in order of merit to the extent of vacancies available and such merit list was prepared on the basis of aggregate marks obtained by officers under all factors for promotion as laid down in the policy. The respondents’ further case is that as per the promotion policy of the Bank existing at the time of promotion from Scale I to Scale II and from Scale II to Scale III, weightage for educational qualification and professional qualification was mentioned. The respondents’ further case is that the petitioner used to participate in the promotion process but could not come higher in the merit list so as to figure in the selection. The process for the said promotion policy is functioning smoothly for the last several years.
4. I, have heard Mr. Tapen, Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned counsel for the respondent- Bank.
5. The main contention of Mr. Sen is that by reason of change in the promotion policy the career and promotion prospect of the petitioner has been adversely and prejudicially affected inasmuch as persons having the specialised and superior qualification or Ph.D. degree have become non-entities in comparison to those persons who possess a formal certificate through a Banking Examination such as CAIIB. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner opted for Bank services for the reason that specific preference was given to the candidates possessing Ph.D. degree and on account of change in the policy in the matter of promotion, juniors, without having such qualifications, have been promoted which will amount to hostile discrimination. Learned counsel then submitted that Clause 6 and 6A of the modified circular dated 1.2.1985 is ultra vires the Constitution of India specially in view of the fact that it confers upon the management uncanalised and unbriddled powers to snatch away a valuable right of promotion.
6. From perusal of the writ application and the argument advanced by Mr. Sen, it is apparent that the main grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been selected for promotion to higher scale due to his getting no weightage for his educational qualification i.e. Ph.D. degree. It has not been disputed by the petitioner that at the time of his appointment preference was given to his possession
Ph.D. degree. It has been categorically stated in the counter affidavit that the Bank has been strictly following the promotion policy under Regulation 17 of the Bank of India (Officers’) Service Regulation, 1976. It is well settled that promotion is not an absolute right of an employee but he has the right to get equal opportunity for consideration for promotion within the frame work of the promotion policy. It has not been disputed by the petitioner that he used to participate in the promotion process but he could not come within the zone of promotion. The respondent Bank has been following the modified promotion policy for the last several years. The case of the respondents is that the officers selected for promotion strictly on the basis of merit to the extent of the vacancy available and such merit list is prepared on the basis of aggregate marks obtained by the officers under all factors of promotion as laid down in the promotion policy. It appears that the petitioner applied for conversion from the specialist to the generalist cadre in terms of the Circular dated 10.9.1981. It was only after the petitioner was found suitable for conversion from specialist to generalist cadre, the same was done.
7. It is well settled that the promotion policy framed by the employer or the management or the competent authority can be changed for the larger interest of all concerned. In the instant case, it has not been disputed by the petitioner that before changing the policy the representative organisations of the employees were taken into confidence. The benefit of having Ph.D. degree, which the petitioner got at the time of appointment, cannot continue as a matter of right to get preferential treatment at the time of all promotions, even if there is no such benefit given in the promotion policy. Regard being had to the fact that the modified policy is being followed for the last several years and the officers are getting promotion on the basis of said policy and also in view of the fact that the petitioner participated in the promotion process and his case was considered at all stages, I am of the view that the relief claimed by the petitioner is not justified.
8. For the reason aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this writ application, which is accordingly dismissed.
9. Writ application dismissed.