{"id":134091,"date":"2000-12-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-12-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thimmappa-ors-vs-chairman-central-bd-of-dirs-sbi-on-5-december-2000"},"modified":"2018-12-13T23:14:30","modified_gmt":"2018-12-13T17:44:30","slug":"k-thimmappa-ors-vs-chairman-central-bd-of-dirs-sbi-on-5-december-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thimmappa-ors-vs-chairman-central-bd-of-dirs-sbi-on-5-december-2000","title":{"rendered":"K. Thimmappa & Ors vs Chairman, Central Bd. Of Dirs. Sbi … on 5 December, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
K. Thimmappa & Ors vs Chairman, Central Bd. Of Dirs. Sbi … on 5 December, 2000<\/div>\n
Author: Pattanaik<\/div>\n
Bench: G.B.Pattanaik, B.N.Aggrawal<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nTransfer Case (civil) 25 1998.\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nK.  THIMMAPPA & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BD.  OF DIRS.\t SBI & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t05\/12\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nG.B.Pattanaik, B.N.Aggrawal\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
L…..I………T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J<\/p>\n
      JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
      PATTANAIK,J.\n<\/p>\n
      These  Transferred  Cases from different\tHigh  Courts
\nrelate\tto  the\t common question, namely, in the  matter  of
\nplacement  of existing officers in the new grades and  scale
\nin  the\t State Bank of India made under State Bank of  India
\nOfficers  (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service)
\nOrder  1979,  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  The   Service
\nOrder),\t  under\t  Paragraph  7\tof   the  said\t Order\t is
\ndiscriminatory\tin  nature,  so\t far as it  deals  with\t the
\nOfficers  Grade\t I.  The Central Board of the State Bank  of
\nIndia  in exercise of power conferred by sub-section (1)  of
\nSection\t 43  of\t the State Bank of India Act 1955  made\t the
\ncondition of Service Order which came into force with effect
\nfrom 1.10.1979.\t Paragraph 7 deals with the placement of the
\nexisting officers on the appointed date in the corresponding
\ngrades\tand  scale as per the table given in Schedule I\t and
\nParagraph  8  deals  with the fitment of the  said  existing
\nofficers in the new grade and scale of pay.  Prior to coming
\ninto  force of the condition of Service Order, in the  State
\nBank of India there were different grades of officers in the
\norganisational\tstructure and so also in other\tNationalised
\nand  Subsidiary\t Banks.\t In the year 1973 the Government  of
\nIndia  appointed  a Committee, called Pillai  Committee\t for
\nbringing uniformity and standardisation in the conditions of
\nservice\t of the officers of various Nationalised Banks.\t The
\nsaid  recommendations  of the Pillai Committee was later  on
\napplied\t to the State Bank of India and its Associate  Banks
\nwith  suitable\tmodification having regard to their  special
\nfeatures.   So far as the State Bank of India is  concerned,
\nthe  entire  re-structuring  of\t its officers  was  made  by
\npassing\t the  conditions  of Service Order which  came\tinto
\nforce  on  1.10.1979.  Paragraph 6 of the Order\t deals\twith
\ncategorisation.\t  Paragraph  7\tof   Order  deals  with\t the
\nplacement  of  existing\t officer on the\t appointed  date  in
\ncorresponding  grades  and scales.  Paragraph 8\t deals\twith
\nfitment\t in  the  new  scales  of  pay.\t  The  aforesaid   3
\nparagraphs are quoted herein-below in extenso:-\n<\/p>\n
      Categorisation   6.   (1)\t Having\t  regard   to\tthe
\nresponsibilities and functions exercisable, every post of an
\nofficer\t in  the  Bank shall be categorised by\tthe  Central
\nBoard  or the Executive Committee or the competent authority
\nas  falling in any one of the grades or scales mentioned  in
\nparagraph  4  and such categorisation may be  reviewed\tfrom
\ntime to time by the Central Board or the Executive Committee
\nor   the   competent\tauthority.     Provided\t  that\t the
\ncategorisation\tof  the posts in existence on the  appointed
\ndate  shall be done before the expiry of two years from that
\ndate  and  shall,  in  respect of the posts  in\t the  senior
\nmanagement  and top executive grades, be done by a committee
\nappointed  for the purpose by the Chairman of the Bank.\t (2)
\nFor   the   purpose  of\t  categorisation  of   posts   under
\nsub-paragraph  (1), every branch or office of the Bank shall
\nbe classified by the Bank in accordance with the criteria to
\nbe  approved by the Central Board or the Executive Committee
\nas  small, medium, large, very large or exceptionally  large
\ncategory.   Placement of existing officers on the  appointed
\ndate in corresponding grades and scales.  7.  Subject to the
\nprovisions  of paragraph 6, existing officers serving in the
\ngrades\tand scales of pay mentioned in column 1 of the table
\ngiven  in Schedule I to this order shall be placed as on the
\nappointed   date   in\tthe   grade  and   scale   specified
\nthere-against  in  column 2 of the said schedule.   Provided
\nthat  any difficulties or anomalies arising out of the above
\nplacement  shall be referred to a committee of such  persons
\nas  the Chairman of the Bank may appoint and the decision of
\nthat  committee\t in this regard shall be final.\t Fitment  in
\nthe  new scales of pay.\t 8.(1) Every existing officer placed
\nin  any\t of the new grades and scales of pay  in  accordance
\nwith  paragraph 7, shall be fitted at such stage in the\t new
\nscale  of pay corresponding to the existing grade and  scale
\nas  specified  in Schedule II to this order.  (2)Subject  to
\nsub-paragraph  (3),  on being so fitted in the new scale  of
\npay,  such  officer  shall  be eligible\t to  draw  the\tnext
\nincrement, if any, in such new scale on the first day of the
\nmonth in which he would have been eligible to draw increment
\nin  terms  of  the provisions in this behalf  prior  to\t the
\nappointed  date.   (3)Where  two  or  more  officers  having
\ndifferent  seniority in the scales of pay immediately before
\nthe  appointed date are fitted at the same stage in the\t new
\nscale  of  pay,\t different  months  may\t be  fixed  for\t the
\neligibility  of such officers for the next increment in\t the
\nnew  scale  of pay.  (4)the mere fact that on the  appointed
\ndate  an officer happens to be posted in a post\t categorised
\nas  that of a grade or scale higher than the one in which he
\nis  placed in accordance with the provisions of paragraph  7
\nwill  not  by  itself  entitle that officer  to\t any  higher
\nplacement or fitment.\n<\/p>\n
      In accordance with Paragraph 7 of the Order Schedule I
\nhas  been  drawn  up  which indicates the  grade  and  scale
\nimmediately  before the appointed date in which the  officer
\nwas  there and the grade and scale in which he is placed  on
\nthe  appointed\tdate.  In the case in hand we are  concerned
\nwith  officers\tdescribed in Items 8 and 9 of the  aforesaid
\nSchedule.  The same is extracted herein-below in extenso:-\n<\/p>\n
      8.Officers  Grade\t I confirmed as\t Middle\t Management
\nsuch\ton    or     before\t 31.12.1972    Scale\t II-\n<\/p>\n
Scale-Rs.500-40-620-45-755-\t\t    Rs.1200-70-1550-
\n95-850-50-1050-EB-50-1150- 75-2000.  60-1330.\n<\/p>\n
      9.Other\tOfficers   Grade   I.\t Junior\t  Management
\nScale-Rs.500-40-620-45-755-    Grade\t Scale\t  I.-Rs.700-
\n95-850-50-1050-EB-50-1150     40-900-50-1100-EB-    60-1330.
\n1200-60-1800.\t and   Officers\t  Grade\t  II-Scale   Rs.500-
\n40-620-45-980-50-1030.\n<\/p>\n
      The  grievance of the petitioners, who happened to  be
\nthe officers of Grade I, prior to the appointed date is that
\nwhile those of them who had been confirmed before 31.12.1972
\nthey had been placed in the Middle Management Grade Scale II
\nin  the scale of Pay of Rs.  1200-2000 while the unconfirmed
\nofficers  of Grade I prior to 31.12.1972 have been placed in
\nthe  Junior Management Grade Scale I in the scale of pay  of
\nRs.700-1800  along  with officers of Grade II prior  to\t the
\nappointed  date.  According to the petitioners, treating the
\nofficers  confirmed in Grade I before 31.12.1972 differently
\nfrom  other officers of Grade I is a hostile  discrimination
\nand  the  so  called  classification made on  the  basis  of
\nconfirmation  made  prior  to 31.12.1972,  with\t unconfirmed
\nhands  is  not founded on any intelligible  differentia\t and
\nfurther having the cut of date at 31.12.1972 has no rational
\nrelation with the object sought to be achieved, and as such,
\nmust  be  held to be arbitrary.\t According to  the  employer
\nbank,  however, taking into account the period on  probation
\nwhich  an  officer  of Grade I is required to  undertake  on
\nbeing  recruited, the successful completion of the period of
\nprobation,  after  which  an  employee\tis  entitled  to  be
\nconfirmed,  the\t guidelines  indicated as to the  period  of
\nservice,  one  must  have for holding a post in\t the  Middle
\nManagement Scale Grade II and all other germane factors, the
\ndecision  having  been taken on the question  of  placement,
\nthat  only those confirmed prior to 31.12.72 will be  placed
\nin  MMG\t Grade Scale II, whereas others should be placed  in
\nJunior\tManagement  Grade  Scale  I cannot  be\theld  to  be
\narbitrary or irrational.\n<\/p>\n
      Mr.   Sanyal,  Mr.   P.P.Rao and\tMr.   R.K.Jain,\t the
\nlearned\t counsel appearing for the petitioners in  different
\nsets   of  Transferred\tPetitions,   raised  the   following
\ncontentions,  in assailing the legality of Schedule I, drawn
\nin  accordance with paragraph 7 of the Conditions of Service
\nOrder,\t1979 in relation to Items 8 and 9 quoted earlier  in
\nthis judgment.\n<\/p>\n
      (1)   In\t the  matter  of  fitment   and\t  placement,
\nbifurcating  the officers of erstwhile Grade I, on the basis
\nof  their  date\t of confirmation is  wholly  irrational\t and
\nfurther,  the date chosen as 31.12.1972 has no basis and  is
\nnothing but an arbitrary and capricious exercise of choosing
\nof  the date and it has no reasonable nexus with the  object
\nsought\tto  be\tachieved  in the matter\t of  placement\tand,
\nconsequently,  must  be held to be violative of Article\t 14.
\n(2)  Prior to the appointed date on 1.10.1979, the  officers
\nof  Grade I, having been promoted from the officers of Grade
\nII  and\t subsequent to the appointed date, the very fact  of
\nplacing some of the officers of Grade I with the officers of
\nGrade  II in Junior Management Grade Scale I, is on the face
\nof  it,\t arbitrary and tantamounts to a demotion in case  of
\nthose,\twho  had  already  been\t in Grade  I  prior  to\t the
\nappointed  date\t and  this  placement must  be\theld  to  be
\narbitrary.   (3)  In fixing 31.12.1972, as the cut of  date,
\nfor  the  purpose of placement and fitment, the same has  no
\nreasonable  nexus  for the differentiation made and  at\t any
\nrate  nothing  has  been  indicated by\tthe  employer,\tand,
\ntherefore,  even  if a classification would be\tpermissible,
\nthen also such classification would be hit by the provisions
\nof  Article 14 of the Constitution.  (4) Paragraph 7 of\t the
\nConditions  of Service Order is subject to the provisions of
\nparagraph 6.  Necessarily, therefore, categorisation, having
\nbeen  required\tto  be\tmade in\t due  consideration  of\t the
\nresponsibility\tand  functions exercisable, it would not  be
\npermissible  under paragraph 7 to place officers of Grade  I
\nin  two\t different grades, some in Middle  Management  Grade
\nScale  II  and\tothers in Junior Management  Grade  Scale  I
\ninasmuch,  it  would  contravene the  mandate  engrafted  in
\nparagraph  6.  (5) Confirmation, being one of the inglorious
\nuncertainties  of  Government Service, depending neither  on
\nefficiency  of\tthe  incumbent nor on  the  availability  of
\nsubstantive  vacancies,\t as has been held by this  Court  in
\nPatwardhans  case,  1977(3) SCC 399, and reaffirmed in\tthe
\nConstitution Bench decision in Direct Recruits case, 1990(2)
\nSCC  715, if such date of confirmation, cannot be the  basis
\nfor  the seniority of the employees in a cadre, there  would
\nbe  no\trhyme  and reason to have such confirmation  as\t the
\nbasis for the placement of the officers when a restructuring
\ntakes  place and the basis of placement being the inglorious
\nuncertainty  of confirmation, the order of placement must be
\nheld  to  be  invalid  and must be  struck  down.   (6)\t The
\nDivision  Bench Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in
\ncase of subsidiary banks as well as the Rajasthan High Court
\nin  case  of  the  State Bank of Bikaner, which\t also  is  a
\nsubsidiary  bank,  having  been\t upheld\t by  this  Court  in
\nsomewhat similar circumstances and the placement and fitment
\nmade  in case of subsidiary banks, having been set aside  by
\nthe  High  Court, the principles enunciated  therein,  would
\napply  with equal force to the case in hand, and, therefore,
\nthe  placement\tof officers of Grade I, those who  have\t not
\nconfirmed by 31.12.72 in the Junior Management Grade Scale I
\nalong  with  the  officers of Grade II, must be held  to  be
\narbitrary and irrational and must be struck down.\n<\/p>\n
      Mr.   Shanti  Bhushan  and Mr.  Kapil  Sibal,  learned
\ncounsel, appearing for the bank, on the other hand contended
\nthat  Conditions  of  Service Order, 1979,  is\ta  statutory
\norder,\t made\tin  exercise  of  powers   conferred   under
\nsub-section(1) of Section 43 of the State Bank of India Act,
\n1955  and  the\tsaid  order   purports\tto  rationalise\t and
\nstandardise  in\t restructuring the administrative set up  of
\nthe  Management cadres and in process of such restructuring,
\nif  on\tconsideration  of relevant  and\t germane  materials,
\nplacement  of the officers has been made, as provided  under
\nparagraph  7  of the Conditions of Service Order, then\tsuch
\nplacement  is not liable to be interfered with by a Court of
\nlaw,  unless a strong case is made out, either on the ground
\nof  mala  fides\t or  on\t the   ground  of  infraction  of  a
\nconstitutional provision.  According to the learned counsel,
\nwhen  officers\tof  a pre-existing Grade are  sought  to  be
\nplaced in the different grades, which emanated on account of
\nstandardisation\t and  re-structuring,  then it\tmay  not  be
\npossible  in a given situation to put all the officers of  a
\nparticular  grade  to be placed in a corresponding grade  or
\nscale  of pay evolved in the process of restructuring.\tThis
\nbeing  the position, while grafting of these officers in the
\nnewly  created grade and scale, if there is a bifurcation of
\nofficers  of  a\t particular grade into two, based  on  their
\nperiod\tof  service, experience and other relevant  factors,
\nsuch  bifurcation  would  not tantamount  to  treating\tthem
\ndiscriminately,\t and  would  not attract the  provisions  of
\nArticle\t 14 of the Constitution.  It was further urged under
\nparagraph  6  ,\t what  was required to be  performed  is  to
\ncategorise   the   officers,   on     the   basis   of\t the
\nresponsibilities  and functions exercisable by such officers
\nwhereas paragraph 7 deals with the placement and paragraph 8
\ndeals  with  the  fitment in the new scale of pay  and\tthis
\nbeing  the position, notwithstanding paragraph 7 is  subject
\nto  paragraph  6, there would be no bar in  bifurcating\t the
\nofficers  of  a\t particular grade and placing  them  in\t two
\ndifferent  grades, as has been done in the present case,  if
\nthere\tis  any\t reasonable   basis  for  such\tbifurcation.
\nAccording   to\tthe  learned   counsel,\t the  provision\t for
\nconfirmation,  contained in paragraph 16, would not  attract
\nthe  mischief  of inglorious uncertainty of confirmation  in
\nthe  service  and on the other hand, it is the\tsatisfactory
\ncompletion   of\t  training  of\t the  officers,\t  which\t  is
\ndeterminative  of the confirmation in service and failure on
\nthe  part  of  the  officer,  who   is\tnot  found  fit\t for
\nconfirmation  by  the  Competent   Authority,  would  entail
\ntermination  of\t service in case of a direct  appointee\t and
\nreversion  to  the substantive grade in case of a  promotee.
\nThis  being  the position with regard to  confirmation,\t the
\nratio in Patwardhans case as well as Direct Recruits case,
\non  which reliance has been placed by the counsel, appearing
\nfor  the  petitioners,\twould have no  application  at\tall.
\nAccording to Mr.  Shanti Bhushan, the judgment of this Court
\nin  Tarsem  Lal Gautam vs.  State Bank of  Patiala,<\/a>  1989(1)
\nSCC,  182,  fully governs the present batch of cases and  as
\nsuch, there is no infirmity with the classification that has
\nbeen  made  amongst the officers of Grade I on the basis  of
\ntheir  date of confirmation, whether prior to 31.12.1972  or
\nthereafter.   Mr.   Sibal, further urged that it would be  a
\nsound  and  wise  exercise of discretion for the  Courts  to
\nrefuse\tto exercise their extraordinary powers under Article
\n226  in\t the case of persons who do not approach  the  Court
\nexpeditiously  for relief and who stand by and allow  things
\nto  happen and then approach the Court to put forward  stale
\nclaims\tand try to unsettle settled matters and in the\tcase
\nin hand, the placement that was made in the year 1979 is now
\nsought\tto be assailed in writ petitions filed in  different
\nHigh  Courts,  the earliest being in the year 1988  and\t the
\nlatest\tbeing in the year 1998 and such delay in approaching
\nthe  Court  disentitles\t the petitioners from  invoking\t the
\nextraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of
\nthe Constitution, and, therefore, these petitions are liable
\nto  be\tdismissed.  In support of this contention,  reliance
\nwas  placed  on\t the decision of this Court in the  case  of
\nP.S.Sadasivaswamy vs.  State of Tamil Nadu,<\/a> 1975(1) SCC 152.
\nBefore\twe  deal  with\tthe respective\tcontentions  of\t the
\nparties\t it would be appropriate for us to notice that\twhat
\nArticle 14 prohibits is class legislation and not reasonable
\nclassification\tfor the purpose of legislation.\t If the rule
\nMaking\tAuthority takes care to reasonably classify  persons
\nfor  a\tparticular purpose and if it deals equally with\t all
\npersons\t belonging to a well defined class then it would not
\nbe  open  to the charge of discrimination.  But to pass\t the
\ntest  of  permissible classification two conditions must  be
\nfulfilled:-  (a) that the classification must be founded  on
\nan  intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons  or
\nthings\twhich  are grouped together from others left out  of
\nthe  group;   and  (b)\tthat the  differentia  must  have  a
\nrational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the
\nstatute\t in question.  The classification may be founded  on
\ndifferent  basis and what is necessary is that there must be
\na  nexus between the basis of classification and the  object
\nunder  consideration.\tArticle 14 of the Constitution\tdoes
\nnot  insist that the classification should be scientifically
\nperfect\t and a Court would not interfere unless the  alleged
\nclassification\tresults in apparent inequality.\t When a\t law
\nis challenged to be discriminatory essentially on the ground
\nthat  it denies equal treatment or protection, the  question
\nfor determination by Court is not whether it has resulted in
\ninquality but whether there is some difference which bears a
\njust  and reasonable relation to the object of\tlegislation.
\nMere   differentiation\t does\tnot   per   se\t amount\t  to
\ndiscrimination\twithin the inhibtion of the equal protection
\nclause.\t  To  attract  the  operation of the  clause  it  is
\nnecessary  to show that the selection or differentiation  is
\nunreasonable  or  arbitrary;  that it does not rest  on\t any
\nrational  basis\t having\t regard\t to  the  object  which\t the
\nlegislature  has  in view.  If a law deals with\t members  of
\nwell  defined  class then it is not obnoxious and it is\t not
\nopen  to  the  charge of denial of equal protection  on\t the
\nground\tthat it has no application to other persons.  It  is
\nfor  the Rule Making Authority to determine what  categories
\nof  persons  would embrace within the scope of the rule\t and
\nmerely because some categories which would stand on the same
\nfooting\t as those which are covered by the rule are left out
\nwould  not render the Rule or the Law enacted in any  manner
\ndiscriminatory\tand  violative\tof Article 14.\t It  is\t not
\npossible  to exhaust the circumstances or criteria which may
\nafford\ta reasonable basis for classification in all  cases.
\nIt  depends  on the object of the legislation, and  what  it
\nreally seeks to achieve.\n<\/p>\n
      In  view\tof  the submissions of the counsel  for\t the
\nparties,  the first question, that arises for  consideration
\nis  whether merely because the officers of Grade I have been
\nplaced\tin two different newly created grades, on the  basis
\nof  their  confirmation,   would  constitute  discrimination
\namongst\t the same group or not?\t The petitioners contention
\nis based upon the observations of this Court in Patwardhans
\ncase  as  well as Direct Recruits case, to the\teffect\tthat
\nconfirmation  being  one of the inglorious uncertainties  of
\nGovernment  service,  could  not have formed the  basis\t for
\nplacement  in  two different grades.  In Patwardhans  case,
\nthe  inter  se\tseniority between the  direct  recruits\t and
\npromotees  was being determined on the basis of the date  of
\ntheir respective confirmation.\tUnder the rules in question,
\na  ratio  between the direct recruits and promotees  to\t the
\ncadre  was  being  maintained at  34:66,  and  confirmation,
\nnecessarily,  depended upon the availability of the posts in
\nthe  cadre in the respective quota.  Further, the  promotees
\nwere  to depend on the availability of substantive vacancies
\nand  then  on the arbitrary discretion of the Government  to
\nconfirm or not to confirm them in those vacancies.  It is in
\nthat  situation,  when the rule of seniority was related  to
\nthe  date  of confirmation, the Court had observed that\t the
\nconfirmation  being  one of the inglorious uncertainties  of
\nGovernment Service, could not have become a reasonable basis
\nfor  determination of inter se seniority.  This decision  in
\nPatwardhans  case was reaffirmed in the Constitution  Bench
\ndecision  in  Direct Recruit Class II Engineering  Officers
\nAssociation  vs.  State of Maharashtra and Others.,<\/a>  1990(2)
\nSCC 715, and the Court reiterated and upheld the decision of
\nthe  Court  in\tPatwardhan.   But what has  been  stated  in
\nrelation to a rule for the purpose of determination of inter
\nse seniority, may not be applicable to all contingencies and
\nit  cannot be said that the confirmation of an employee in a
\nparticular  cadre  cannot  form\t a rational  basis  for\t any
\npurpose\t whatsoever.   In  the\tcase   in  hand,  under\t the
\nConditions  of\tService\t Order,\t a  person  appointed  as  a
\nprobationary officer or a trainee officer, is required to be
\non  probation for a period of two years.  An employee of the
\nbank  when  promoted as an officer to the Junior  Management
\nGrade  is  required to be on probation for a period  of\t one
\nyear.\tIn  accordance\twith  paragraph\t  16  of  the\tsaid
\nConditions  of\tService Order, such officers  on  probation,
\nshall  be  confirmed  in  the service of the  bank,  if\t the
\nCompetent  Authority is of the opinion that the employee has
\nsatisfactorily\tcompleted the period of probation.  The said
\nCompetent Authority also has a right to extend the period of
\nprobation,   if\t in  his  opinion,   the  officer  has\t not
\nsatisfactorily\t completed  the\t  probationary\tperiod.\t  In
\nparagraph  16(3),  on  the end of the period  of  probation,
\nincluding  the period of extension, if any, if the Competent
\nAuthority  is of the opinion that the officer is not fit for
\npromotion,  then  the  service of the  direct  appointee  is
\nliable\tto  be terminated and in case of a promotee,  he  is
\nliable\tto be reverted to his substantive cadre.  In view of
\nthe aforesaid statutory provision, dealing with confirmation
\nand  probation,\t the  observation  made\t by  this  Court  in
\nPatwardhans  case  or  Direct Recruit case,  will  have\t no
\napplication.   The  question of inglorious uncertainties  in
\nthe  matter  of confirmation, does not arise in the case  in
\nhand,  in  view\t of   the  aforesaid  statutory\t provisions.
\nConsequently,  the main argument of the petitioner  counsel
\nand  their  reliance  on  the  two  decisions,\treferred  to
\nearlier, will have no application and the contention on this
\nscore accordingly fails.\n<\/p>\n
      Notwithstanding,\tthe aforesaid conclusion of ours, it
\nstill remains to be examined, as to whether in the matter of
\nplacement,  prescribing 31.12.1972, as the cut of date,\t can
\nbe  referred to any rational basis.  It is too well  settled
\nthat  even  if\ta classification would be  permissible,\t but
\nunless\tthere  is any rational basis of the same,  the\tvery
\nbasis  would be hit by Article 14.  The stand of the bank is
\nthat  taking  into  account  the fact  that  the  period  of
\nprobation  is  either  one  year or two\t years\tin  case  of
\npromotees  or direct recruits and that successful completion
\nof  the\t probationary  period entitles the  employee  to  be
\nconfirmed  and minimum six years of service in the Grade, is
\nrequired  for being placed in Middle Management Grade  Scale
\nII,  as\t per the guidelines issued and since  placement\t was
\nrequired  to  be made on 1.10.1979, which is  the  appointed
\ndate  in  the  Conditions of Service  Order,  the  Competent
\nAuthority  of the bank namely the Central Board of the State
\nBank  of India, has determined the date 31.12.1972.  In view
\nof  the\t explanations,\toffered by the bank as well  as\t the
\naverments  made\t in the counter affidavit, we are unable  to
\nhold  that  date 31.12.1972 is an arbitrary date and has  no
\nrational nexus with the placement of the officers of Grade I
\nin  Middle  Management\tGrade Scale II.\t  If  the  Competent
\nAuthority  on  relevant\t and all germane  factors,  takes  a
\ndecision  in the matter of placement or fitment, whenever  a
\nrestructuring  of the cadre is made, then the Court will not
\nbe  justified  in examining the basis of such  placement  or
\nfitment\t in  a mathematical scale and would  not  ordinarily
\ninterfere  with\t such  decision, unless\t it  is\t established
\nbeyond\tdoubt that the decision is totally arbitrary or\t has
\nbeen  mala  fidely taken.  When we examined the\t assertions,
\nmade  by the petitioners in their writ petitions, we do\t not
\nfind  any basis or even any pleadings of mala fides.  In New
\nBank of India Employees Union and Anr.\tvs.  Union of India
\nand  Ors.,<\/a>  1996(8)  SCC  407, placement of  officers  of  a
\nparticular  bank,  after its amalgamation with another\tbank
\nwas  the  subject matter of challenge and in  that  context,
\nthis Court had observed:\n<\/p>\n
      The  legal position is fairly settled that no  scheme
\nof  Amalgamation  can  be fool-proof and a  Court  would  be
\nentitled  to interfere only when it comes to the  conclusion
\nthat  either  the scheme is arbitrary or irrational  or\t has
\nbeen framed on some extraneous consideration.\n<\/p>\n
      What  has\t been observed in the case of  amalgamation,
\nwould  equally apply to a case of restructuring of the cadre
\nand  placement and fitment of the existing employees in\t the
\nrestructured cadre.  In fact in Tarsem Lal Gautam vs.  State
\nBank  of  Patiala,<\/a> 1989(1)SCC 182, this Court was  examining
\nthe  legality of classification, based upon their  seniority
\nand  experience for being fitted into two different  grades,
\nthough\toriginally  belong to one grade, as in\tthe  present
\ncase.\tWhile upholding such placement and fitment and while
\ncoming\tto  the\t conclusion  that it  would  not  amount  to
\ndiscrimination\t or   violative\t of   Article  14   of\t the
\nConstitution,  this  Court had taken note of the  fact\tthat
\nwhen  new  categories  of posts and new scales\tof  pay\t are
\ncreated,  while\t trying to standardise and  rationalise\t the
\nmanagement  cadre,  some  criteria have to  be\tevolved\t and
\napplied\t for  the  placement  and fitment  of  the  existing
\nofficers  into\tthe  new  categories  of  posts,  which\t may
\nnecessitate  the pre-existing cadre of officers to be fitted
\nin two grades and so long as their exists a reasonable basis
\nfor   such   bifurcation,  it  would   not  be\ta  case\t  of
\ndiscrimination,\t attracting Article 14 of the  Constitution.
\nUltimately,   this   Court  held   that\t the  principle\t  of
\nclassification\tbrought\t about by the statutory\t regulation,
\ncannot\tbe  said  to  be unreasonable  and  arbitrary.\t The
\naforesaid  dictum,  in\tour opinion, would apply  with\tfull
\nforce  to the facts of the present case.  We are,  therefore
\nof  the\t considered opinion that placement of  the  existing
\nofficers  in the new grades, as provided in Schedule I, made
\nin  paragraph 7 of the Conditions of Service Order, and more
\nparticularly, placement made in respect of officers Grade I,
\nconfirmed on or before 31.12.1972 in Middle Management Grade
\nScale  II and others in Junior Management Grade Scale I,  is
\nnot hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
      The  next\t question, that arises for consideration  is
\nwhether\t putting  officers  of\tGrade I, who  had  not\tbeen
\nconfirmed on or before 31.12.1972 along with the officers of
\nGrade II in Junior Management Grade Scale I, would per se be
\ndiscriminatory\tinasmuch as prior to the new structurisation
\nof  the\t management, promotion was being made from  Officers
\nGrade  II  to Officers Grade I?\t According to  Mr.   Sanyal,
\nthis  tantamounts to un-equals being treated as equals,\t and
\neven  demotion\tof the officers of Grade I who had not\tbeen
\nconfirmed  before 31.12.1972.  We are unable to accept\tthis
\nsubmission  of the learned counsel for the petitioners.\t  It
\nis  no doubt true that prior to the new structurising of the
\nmanagement,  persons  from  officers  Grade  II\t were  being
\npromoted  to  the  officers  Grade  I.\t But  in  suggesting
\nrestructure  of\t the  entire  managerial  cadre\t by  way  of
\nstandardisation,  when\tless  category of grades  have\tbeen
\nevolved,  necessarily,\tthere would be merger  of  different
\npre- existing grades, but such merger will neither amount to
\ndemotion  in  any  manner nor would it\tamount\tto  treating
\nunequals  as  equals.  It is in fact a part of\texercise  of
\ncadre  adjustment  process,  after taking  the\tdecision  of
\nminimising  the\t number of grades and, consequently, such  a
\ndecision  having  been\ttaken by adopting  the\tdecision  of
\nexpertised  body of Pillai Committees Report, it cannot\t be
\nsaid  that  the Central Board of the State Bank of India  in
\nmaking\tthe  Conditions of Service Orders 1979, treated\t the
\nofficers of Grade I, who had not been confirmed on or before
\n31.12.1972  with  hostile discrimination.  The arguments  on
\nbehalf\tof  the petitioners on this score, therefore  stands
\nrejected.\n<\/p>\n
      Mr.   Sibal,  appearing  for the Bank,  no  doubt\t has
\nraised\tthe  contention that gross delay on the part of\t the
\nemployees  in filing the writ petition, dis-entitles them to
\nget  any  discretionary relief and in support of  the  same,
\nreliance  has  been placed on the decision of this court  in
\nP.S.Sadasivaswamy  vs.\t State of Tamil Nadu,<\/a> 1975  (1)\t SCC\n<\/p>\n
152.   In the aforesaid case, this Court observed that\teven
\nthough no period of limitation is provided for the Courts to
\nexercise  power\t under Article 226, but it would be a  sound
\nand  wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to
\nexercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the
\ncase  of  persons who do not approach it  expeditiously\t for
\nrelief\tand who stand by and allow things to happen and then
\napproach  the  Court to put forward stale claims and try  to
\nunsettle settled matters.\n<\/p>\n
      Mr.   Rao,  the learned senior counsel, appearing\t for
\nthe petitioners, on the other hand, vehemently urged that if
\nthe  treatment\tmeted out to the petitioners is found to  be
\ndiscriminatory\tand  as\t such  violates Article\t 14  of\t the
\nConstitution,  then  the  Court\t will  not  throw  away\t the
\npetitions  merely  on the ground of latches.  In support  of
\nthe  contention,  reliance  was placed on  the\tConstitution
\nBench  decision\t of  this Court in the\tcase  of  Ramchandra
\nShankar\t Deodhar  & Ors.  Vs.  The State of Maharashtra\t and
\nOrs.,  1974(2)\tSCR 216.  In the said case, this  Court\t had
\nobserved:\n<\/p>\n
      Moreover,\t it  may  be  noticed that  the\t claim\tfor
\nenforcement  of\t the fundamental right or equal\t opportunity
\nunder  Article\t16 is itself a fundamental right  guaranteed
\nunder  Article 32 and this Court which has been assigned the
\nrole  of  a sentinel on the qui vive for protection  of\t the
\nfundamental   rights  cannot  easily   allow  itself  to  be
\npersuaded  to  refuse relief solely on the jejune ground  of
\nlatches, delay or the like.\n<\/p>\n
      Mr.   Rao\t also  relied upon the observation  of\tthis
\nCourt  in  the\tcase of B.Prabhakar Rao\t and  Ors.etc.\t vs.
\nState of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.  Etc.Etc.<\/a>  1985(Supp.)2 SCR
\n573,  wherein  Chinnappa  Reddy, J, speaking for  the  Court
\nobserved thus:\n<\/p>\n
      ……..the burden of establishing the reasonableness
\nof  a  classification and its nexus with the object  of\t the
\nlegislation   is  on  the   State.   Though  no\t  calamitous
\nconsequences\twere\tmentioned    in\t    any\t   of\t the
\ncounter-affidavits, one of the submissions strenuously urged
\nbefore\tus by the learned Advocate-General of Andhra Pradesh
\nand  the  several  other counsel who followed  him  was\t the
\noft-repeated  and  now familiar argument of  ‘administrative
\nchaos.\t It was said that there would be considerable chaos
\nin  the administration if those who had already retired\t are
\nnow directed to be re-inducted into service.\n<\/p>\n
      A\t passage  from\tthe  judgment  of  Lord\t Denning  in
\nBradbury  and Ors.  Vs.\t London Borough of Enfield,  1967(3)
\nAll  England  Law  Reports Page 434, was also  pressed\tinto
\nservice\t by  Mr.  P.P.Rao, which it is worth-while to  quote
\nhereunder:\n<\/p>\n
      It  has been suggested by the Chief education officer
\nthat,  if  an injunction is granted, chaos  will  supervene.
\nAll  the arrangements have been made for the next term,\t the
\nteachers  appointed  to the new comprehensive  schools,\t the
\npupils\tallotted  their places, and so forth.  It  would  be
\nnext   to  impossible,\the  says,   to\treverse\t all   these
\narrangements  without complete chaos and damage to teachers,
\npupils\tand  the  public.   I must say\tthis:\tif  a  local
\nauthority  does not fulfil the requirements of the law, this
\nCourt will see that it does fulfil them.  It will not listen
\nreadily\t to  suggestions  of  chaos.   The  department\tof
\neducation and the council are subject to the rule of law and
\nmust comply with it, just like everyone else.  Even if chaos
\nshould\tresult, still the law must be obeyed;  but I do\t not
\nthink  that  chaos will result.\t The evidence  convinces  me
\nthat the chaos is much over-stated.\n<\/p>\n
      On  consideration\t of  the aforesaid  legal  position,
\nthough,\t we  are  inclined to agree with Mr.   P.P.Rao\tthat
\nthese  cases  should  not  be thrown out on  the  ground  of
\nlatches\t alone, inasmuch as the placement made on  1.10.1979
\nwas  assailed  in the year 1988 at the earliest and 1998  at
\nthe  latest,  yet  the\tsame   may  not\t be  brushed  aside,
\nparticularly,  when  we have not been able to find  out\t any
\ninfraction  of\tany fundamental right of these\tpetitioners,
\nguaranteed under the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
      So  far as the argument advanced on the interpretation
\nof  paragraph  7,  on the ground that it is subject  to\t the
\nprovisions  of paragraph 6, we are of the considered opinion
\nthat  paragraph\t 6  of\tthe   Conditions  of  Service  Order
\nindicates  as to how categorisation has to be made.  In fact
\non  the basis of the adoption of the recommendations of\t the
\nPillai\tCommittee,  the officers have been categorised\tinto
\nfour different categories with nine different scales of pay;
\nTop  Executive\tGrade with three scales,  Senior  Management
\nGrade  with  three scales, Middle Management Grade with\t two
\nscales\tand  Junior  Management\t Grade with  one  scale\t and
\ncategorisation\thas  to\t be  made taking  into\taccount\t the
\nresponsibilities  and functions exercisable by the  officers
\nconcerned.   After  such  categorisation,   as\tprovided  in
\nparagraph  6,  the  officers are required to  be  placed  in
\ncorresponding grades and scale.\t In other words, in the case
\nin hand, Grade I officers, confirmed on or before 31.12.1972
\non  being  categorised as Middle Management Grade Scale\t II,
\nother officers of Grade I, not confirmed till 31.12.1972 are
\ncategorised  into  Junior  Management  Grade  Scale  I,\t and
\nfurther,  on  categorised as Middle Management Grade,  while
\nofficers  Grade\t I are being placed in Scale II thereof\t but
\nStaff  Officers,  Grade\t III, enumerated in Item No.   7  of
\nSchedule  I are placed in Middle Management Grade Scale III.
\nThe  concept of categorisation, placement and fitment in the
\nnew  scale of pay are three different concepts, provided  in
\nparagraphs  6,\t7 and 8 of the Conditions of Service  Order.
\nIf  this  concept  is  borne  in  mind\tand  the  provisions
\ncontained  in Schedule I is examined, we see no infirmity in
\nplacing\t officers  Grade I not confirmed till 31.12.1972  in
\nJunior\tManagement Grade Scale I, nor can it be said that it
\nwould  violate\tthe mandate contained in paragraph 6 of\t the
\nConditions  of\tService Order.\tThe said contention  of\t Mr.
\nRao, therefore, is rejected.\n<\/p>\n
      The  only\t other\tcontention  that  survives  for\t our
\nconsideration  is the Division Bench decision of the  Andhra
\nPradesh\t High Court , which was upheld by this Court as well
\nas  the\t decision of the Rajasthan High Court in  the  State
\nBank of Patialas case, which was also upheld by this Court.
\nBoth  in  the Andhra Pradesh case as well as  the  Rajasthan
\nHigh Court case, it was the officers of the subsidiary bank,
\nwho had approached the Court for certain relief and no doubt
\nthe  observations  made by the learned Judges of the  Andhra
\nPradesh\t High  Court  would support the\t contention  of\t the
\npetitioners  in this batch of cases to a great extent.\t But
\nthe  judgment  of this Court, dismissing the  banks  appeal
\nagainst the same, does not contain any discussion, though it
\ncannot\tbe  denied  that dismissal was on  merits.   But  it
\ntranspires that the earlier judgment of this court in Tarsem
\nLal  Gautams case, 1989(1) SCC 182, had not been brought to
\nthe  notice  of the Court and when a Contempt  Petition\t had
\nbeen  filed for non-implementation, when the Bank asked\t for
\nvariation  of  the  order and brought to the notice  of\t the
\nCourt  the judgment in Tarsem Lal Gautams case, 1989(1) SCC
\n182,  the  Court observed that the judgment in Civil  Appeal
\nmust  be confined to its own facts and as such the  judgment
\nof  the High Court has now to be implemented.  What has been
\nobserved  by  this  Court  in\tdisposing  of  the  contempt
\napplication,  when  the decision of the Court in Tarsem\t Lal
\nGautams\t case  had been brought to the notice, would  apply
\nequally\t to the case in hand, more so, as against a detailed
\ndiscussion  of\tlaw in Tarsem Lal Gautams case,\t there\thas
\nbeen  no  discussion  at all, while  dismissing\t the  Banks
\nappeal against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
\nas  well  as Rajasthan High Court.  Consequently, we are  of
\nthe  considered opinion that the observations of the  Andhra
\nPradesh\t High Court, while disposing of the writ  petitions,
\nfiled  by the officers of the subsidiary banks will not have
\nany  application  to the case in hand, as had  already\tbeen
\nobserved,  while disposing of the contempt application, that
\nit  would  only be applicable to the facts of that case\t and
\nmore  so,  in  the  present   case,  when  we  have  already
\nconsidered  the\t contentions  raised by the  petitioners  in
\ndetail, and have not been persuaded to accept the same.\n<\/p>\n
      In the aforesaid premises, all the contentions raised,
\nhaving\tfailed,\t these\ttransferred  cases\/petitions,  stand
\ndismissed   and\t the  writ   petitions\tfiled  by  different
\npetitioners in different High Courts stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
      For   the\t grounds  stated  in  the  application\t for
\ncondonation  of delay in filing the substitution application
\nin  Transfer  Petition\t(Civil)\t  No.\t665-668\/98,  in\t the
\ninterest  of  justice,\tthe  delay   is\t condoned  and\t the
\nsubstitution\tapplication   is     allowed.\t The   Legal
\nRepresentatives\t of  the  deceased respondent  No.   12\t are
\nbrought on record.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India K. Thimmappa & Ors vs Chairman, Central Bd. Of Dirs. Sbi … on 5 December, 2000 Author: Pattanaik Bench: G.B.Pattanaik, B.N.Aggrawal CASE NO.: Transfer Case (civil) 25 1998. PETITIONER: K. THIMMAPPA & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BD. OF DIRS. SBI & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/12\/2000 BENCH: G.B.Pattanaik, B.N.Aggrawal JUDGMENT: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-134091","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nK. Thimmappa & Ors vs Chairman, Central Bd. Of Dirs. Sbi ... on 5 December, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thimmappa-ors-vs-chairman-central-bd-of-dirs-sbi-on-5-december-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K. Thimmappa & Ors vs Chairman, Central Bd. Of Dirs. Sbi ... on 5 December, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thimmappa-ors-vs-chairman-central-bd-of-dirs-sbi-on-5-december-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-13T17:44:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"31 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-thimmappa-ors-vs-chairman-central-bd-of-dirs-sbi-on-5-december-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-thimmappa-ors-vs-chairman-central-bd-of-dirs-sbi-on-5-december-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K. Thimmappa & Ors vs Chairman, Central Bd. Of Dirs. Sbi … on 5 December, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-13T17:44:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-thimmappa-ors-vs-chairman-central-bd-of-dirs-sbi-on-5-december-2000\"},\"wordCount\":6116,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-thimmappa-ors-vs-chairman-central-bd-of-dirs-sbi-on-5-december-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-thimmappa-ors-vs-chairman-central-bd-of-dirs-sbi-on-5-december-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-thimmappa-ors-vs-chairman-central-bd-of-dirs-sbi-on-5-december-2000\",\"name\":\"K. Thimmappa & Ors vs Chairman, Central Bd. Of Dirs. Sbi ... on 5 December, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-13T17:44:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-thimmappa-ors-vs-chairman-central-bd-of-dirs-sbi-on-5-december-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-thimmappa-ors-vs-chairman-central-bd-of-dirs-sbi-on-5-december-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-thimmappa-ors-vs-chairman-central-bd-of-dirs-sbi-on-5-december-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K. Thimmappa & Ors vs Chairman, Central Bd. Of Dirs. Sbi … on 5 December, 2000\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"K. Thimmappa & Ors vs Chairman, Central Bd. Of Dirs. Sbi ... on 5 December, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thimmappa-ors-vs-chairman-central-bd-of-dirs-sbi-on-5-december-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K. Thimmappa & Ors vs Chairman, Central Bd. Of Dirs. Sbi ... on 5 December, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thimmappa-ors-vs-chairman-central-bd-of-dirs-sbi-on-5-december-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-13T17:44:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"31 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thimmappa-ors-vs-chairman-central-bd-of-dirs-sbi-on-5-december-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thimmappa-ors-vs-chairman-central-bd-of-dirs-sbi-on-5-december-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K. Thimmappa & Ors vs Chairman, Central Bd. Of Dirs. Sbi … on 5 December, 2000","datePublished":"2000-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-13T17:44:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thimmappa-ors-vs-chairman-central-bd-of-dirs-sbi-on-5-december-2000"},"wordCount":6116,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thimmappa-ors-vs-chairman-central-bd-of-dirs-sbi-on-5-december-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thimmappa-ors-vs-chairman-central-bd-of-dirs-sbi-on-5-december-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thimmappa-ors-vs-chairman-central-bd-of-dirs-sbi-on-5-december-2000","name":"K. Thimmappa & Ors vs Chairman, Central Bd. Of Dirs. Sbi ... on 5 December, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-13T17:44:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thimmappa-ors-vs-chairman-central-bd-of-dirs-sbi-on-5-december-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thimmappa-ors-vs-chairman-central-bd-of-dirs-sbi-on-5-december-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-thimmappa-ors-vs-chairman-central-bd-of-dirs-sbi-on-5-december-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K. Thimmappa & Ors vs Chairman, Central Bd. Of Dirs. Sbi … on 5 December, 2000"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/134091","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=134091"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/134091\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=134091"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=134091"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=134091"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}