{"id":14491,"date":"1990-04-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1990-04-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-state-bank-officers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-16-april-1990"},"modified":"2016-12-30T01:59:16","modified_gmt":"2016-12-29T20:29:16","slug":"all-india-state-bank-officers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-16-april-1990","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-state-bank-officers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-16-april-1990","title":{"rendered":"All India State Bank Officers … vs Union Of India And Ors on 16 April, 1990"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
All India State Bank Officers … vs Union Of India And Ors on 16 April, 1990<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1990 SCR (2) 493, \t 1990 SCC Supl. 336<\/div>\n
Author: S Rangnathan<\/div>\n
Bench: Rangnathan, S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nALL INDIA STATE BANK OFFICERS FEDERATIONTHROUGH ITS PRESIDEN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT16\/04\/1990\n\nBENCH:\nRANGNATHAN, S.\nBENCH:\nRANGNATHAN, S.\nVERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1990 SCR  (2) 493\t  1990 SCC  Supl.  336\n JT 1990 (2)   243\t  1990 SCALE  (1)40\n\n\nACT:\n    Constitution    of\t India\t 1950:\t Article    32--Writ\nPetition--Reckless\tstatements\tand\t  deliberate\nmis-statements--Making of--Court records strong disapproval.\n    Practice  and  Procedure:  Writ  Petitions--Simultaneous\nfiling of in various High Courts--A practice which has to be\ndiscouraged.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t All India State Bank Officers' Federation  filed  a\nWrit Petition in this Court on the 24th April, 1989  seeking\nto impugn a new promotion policy initiated by the State Bank\nof India. The petition was supported by an affidavit of\t the\nPresident  of the Federation affirming the contents  of\t the\npetition  to be true to his personal knowledge, and  submit-\nting in paragraph 9(mm) of the petition that the petitioners\nwere  approaching this Court in great haste as the Bank\t was\nmoving\twith  great  speed to implement\t its  new  promotion\npolicy and was likely to constitute a Departmental Promotion\nCommittee, and declare the results. In para 4 it was submit-\nted  that  the petitioners had not filed any  other  similar\npetition either in this Court or any other High Court.\n    When  the writ petition came up for admission  before  a\nBench of this Court on April 26, 1989, counsel for the State\nBank  of India was present and accepted notice on behalf  of\nthe Bank.\n    The\t Writ Petition was contested by the Bank which\tsub-\nmitted in its counter affidavit that the statement in para 4\nof  the petition in support of the writ petition was  false,\nand  pointed  out  that the Federation\tthrough\t its  Deputy\nGeneral\t Secretary  had filed a Writ Petition  in  the\tHigh\nCourt  of Andhra Pradesh along with an\tapplication  seeking\nstay of the promotion policy, and that the High Court admit-\nted  the  Writ Petition on April 13, 1989 but  rejected\t the\napplication  for interim stay, and further pointed out\tthat\nanother\t petition had been filed by the State Bank of  India\nOfficers'  Association\t(Karnataka) in\tthe  Karnataka\tHigh\nCourt. A second objection as regards the maintainability  of\nthe\n494\npetition was raised in para 3 that since the promotions\t had\nalready\t been made they could not be disturbed and  that  no\nsteps  were  taken to implead those officers, who  would  be\ndirectly affected as a result of the prayer made in the writ\npetition.\n    To\tthe  aforesaid\tobjections raised by  the  Bank\t the\npetitioner  filed a rejoinder supported by an  affidavit  of\nthe  President of the Federation, submitting that the  depo-\nnent  did not have any knowledge of the writ petition  filed\nin the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, and that as soon as  it\ncame  to his knowledge it was withdrawn. and that the  peti-\ntioners did not know the names of all the 58 candidates\t who\nhad been promoted favoured.\n    When the Writ Petition was taken up for further  hearing\non  April  5,  1990, counsel for the Bank  objected  to\t the\nmaintainability\t of  the  writ petition on  the\t grounds  of\nsuppression  of material facts and abuse of the\t process  of\ncourt.\tThe Court directed the petitioner to file  a  better\naffidavit,  and\t the petitioner Federation  filed  a  better\naffidavit  explaining the correct position and tendering  an\nunqualified  apology for the mis-statements in\tthe  earlier\naffidavit,  but still reiterated that they came to  know  of\nthe  writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court only  on\nApril  23,  1989 and that, at the time\tof  the\t preliminary\nhearing,  it was brought to the notice of the Court  by\t the\nRespondent's counsel.\n    The\t respondent pointed out that the statements made  in\nthe  rejoinder filed by the petitioners that they  were\t not\naware  of the names of the promoted officers till  November,\n1989  was a total falsehood because; (i) the  writ  petition\nfiled  in the Karnataka High Court made all of them  parties\nto  the\t writ petition, and (ii) the names of  the  promoted\nofficers  were\tlisted in the fortnightly  bulletin  of\t the\nState Bank Officers' Association dated 1st May, 1989  carry-\ning a message of congratulations to all of them.\n    Disposing  of the preliminary objections and  adjourning\nthe writ petition for further hearing on merits, the Court,\n    HELD:  1.  Apart from mis-statements in  the  affidavits\nfiled before this Court the petitioner federation has clear-\nly resorted to tactics which can only be described as  abuse\nof  the\t process of court. The simultaneous filing  of\twrit\npetitions  in various High Courts on the same  issue  though\npurportedly  on\t behalf\t of different  associations  of\t the\nOfficers of the Bank, is a practice which has to be discour-\naged. [500H; 501A]\n495\n    2.\tAn attempt was made to obtain a stay in\t the  Andhra\nPradesh\t High  Court and when that attempt failed  the\twrit\npetition  here was filed. In this the petitioners were\table\nto obtain only an order that any \"promotions made during the\npendency of the petition would be subject to the decision in\nthe  writ petition. But having obtained this order on  April\n26, 1989, it is curious and inexplicable that an  affiliated\nassociation  should  have made an application on  April\t 27,\n1989  in the Karnataka High Court praying for a stay of\t the\npromotions. These are only tactics that will be indulged  in\nby a chronic and compulsive litigant and not by a Federation\nlike the petitioner. [501C-D]\n    3. One expects that officers fight their battles  fairly\nand  squarely  and not stoop low to gain what  can  only  be\ntemporary victories by keeping away material facts from\t the\ncourt. [501E]\n    4. It is common knowledge that, of late, statements\t are\nbeing  made in petitions and affidavits\t recklessly  without\nproper verifications not to speak of dishonest and  deliber-\nate  misstatements. Strong and emphatic disapproval  of\t the\nconduct\t of the petitioners in this case is recorded in\t the\nhope  that this will be a lesson to the present\t petitioners\nas  well  as to other litigants and that atleast  in  future\npeople will act more truthfully and with a greater sense  of\nresponsibility. [501F-G]\n    5.\tThe  Court  does not wish to  penalise\tthe  various\nofficers who may suffer as a consequences of the new policy,\nwhich they wish to challenge, and decline them an opportuni-\nty to put forward their grievances before the Court, for the\nmis-statements\tor wrong steps taken by the officers of\t the\nFederation  in their over-anxiety to get quick\tinterim\t re-\nlief. [502B-C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     ORIGINAL  JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.\t 507
\nand 1260 of 1989.\n<\/p>\n
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).\n<\/p>\n
     M.K. Ramamurthy, Rajinder Sachhar, Dr. Francis  Julion,
\nMs.  Aruna Mathur, A. Mariarputham, Ms. S. Dikshit,  S.\t Va-
\nsudevan and Pradeep Misra for the Petitioners.
\nFor the Respondents–Nemo.\n<\/p>\n
The following Order of the Court was delivered by
\n496<\/span>
\n    S. RANGANATHAN, J. This order will dispose of a prelimi-
\nnary  objection\t raised on behalf of  the  respondents\tthat
\nthese  writ petitions should be dismissed because the  peti-
\ntioners\t have  suppressed certain material facts  from\tthis
\nCourt  and have also tried to abuse the process of court  in
\nthe manner hereinafter appearing.\n<\/p>\n
    Writ Petition No. 507 of 1989 has been filed by the\t All
\nIndia  State Bank Officers’ Federation\t(hereinafter  called
\n‘the  Federation’)  through its President. It was  filed  in
\nthis Court on 21st April, 89 and was supported by an affida-
\nvit  of Umed Singh, President of the  Federation,  affirming
\nthe  contents  of the petition to be true  to  his  personal
\nknowledge.  By\tthis writ petition the Federation  seeks  to
\nimpugn a new promotion policy decided upon by the State Bank
\nof India (hereinafter called ‘the Bank’). In paragraph 9(mm)
\nof  the petition it is stated that the petitioners  are\t ap-
\nproaching  this Court in great haste as the Bank  is  moving
\nwith  great speed and is likely to  constitute\tDepartmental
\nPromotion  Committees and declare the results of the  inter-
\nviews  in implementation of the new promotion policy  within
\nthe next two or three days. In the affidavit of Umed  Singh,
\nreferred  to earlier, it has been stated in para 4 that\t the
\npetitioners  have not filed any other similar writ  petition
\nin this Honourable Court or any other High Court.
\n    In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Bank, it  is
\nstated that the statement in paragraph 4 of the petition  in
\nsupport\t of  the writ petition is false. It is\tpointed\t out
\nthat the Federation through its Deputy General Secretary had
\nfiled  Writ Petition No. 5286 of 1989 in the High  Court  of
\nAndhra\tPradesh at Hyderabad along with an  application\t No.
\n6969  of  1989,\t seeking stay of the  promotion\t policy.  On
\n13.4.89\t the  Andhra Pradesh High Court\t admitted  the\twrit
\npetition but the learned judge rejected the application\t for
\ninterim\t stay observing “that he was prima  facie  satisfied
\nthat the selection is going on according to a fair procedure
\nand  that there is no need to stay any of the interviews  or
\nthe  appointment”.  It is further pointed out  that  another
\npetition  has  also been filed by the State  Bank  of  India
\nOfficers’  Association\t(Karnataka)  having  its  office  at
\nBangalore  in the Karnataka High Court, being Writ  Petition
\nNo.  7848  of  1989. It is, therefore,\tsubmitted  that\t the
\npetitioners  have  suppressed from this Court  the  material
\nfact that a writ petition has already been filed by them  in
\nthe  Andhra Pradesh High Court and that an  application\t for
\nstay had been made and rejected by the said court. A  second
\nobjection to the
\n497<\/span>
\nmaintainability.  of  the petition raised on behalf  of\t the
\nBank in paragraph 3 of its counter affidavit was that  since
\npromotions had already been made they could not be disturbed
\n“as the promoted officers have not been made parties”. It is
\ncommon ground that 58 officers had been promoted w.e.f. 24th
\nApril, 89 but no steps were taken to implead these officers,
\nwho  would  be directly affected as a result of\t the  prayer
\nmade in the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
    To these objections, a rejoinder was filed on behalf  of
\nthe  petitioners,  supported again by an affidavit  of\tUmed
\nSingh  on  the\t23rd of October, 1989.\tThe  two  objections
\nraised by the Bank were sought to be refuted in the  follow-
\ning manner:\n<\/p>\n
“1. That the contents of para 1 are denied and it is reiter-
\nated  that  the writ petition is maintainable  as  there  is
\nclear  violation  of fundamental rights\t guaranteed  to\t the
\npetitioners.  The writ petition filed in the Andhra  Pradesh
\nHigh  Court has since been withdrawn as per the\t undertaking
\ngiven to the Supreme Court during arguments on 24.4.89.\t The
\ndeponent had no knowledge of the writ petition filed  before
\nthe  High Court of Andhra Pradesh, hence as soon as it\tcame
\nto his knowledge the same has been withdrawn. Even otherwise
\nthe deponent understands that in the said writ petition\t the
\nstay  of interviews was prayed and the same was declined  on
\nrepresentation\tmade  by the respondent bank. It  is  indeed
\nregrettable  that  even before Hon’ble High Court  the\tbank
\nmade  incorrect statements. A perusal of the order  of\tHigh
\nCourt would show the same. Regarding the question of  making
\nsuch employees who have been promoted as a party respondent,
\nit  is\tsubmitted that firstly it is  the  promotion  policy
\nwhich  had been challenged being  arbitrary,  discriminatory
\nand  framed in gross violation of the  prescribed  procedure
\nand  provisions of law, secondly the petitioners even  today
\ndo  not\t know the names of all such 58 candidates  who\thave
\nbeen promoted favoured.”\t\t\t   (emphasis
\nadded)
\n    It\tmay be mentioned here that Writ Petition No. 507  of
\n1989  came up for admission before a Bench of this Court  on
\n26th April, 1989. Apparently, the counsel for the State Bank
\nof  India was present and accepted notice on behalf  of\t the
\nbank. The Bench passed the following order:\n<\/p>\n
498<\/span><\/p>\n
“Issue\tnotice,\t Mr. S.S. Sharma,  learned  counsel  accepts
\nnotice on behalf of the State Bank of India. Counter affida-
\nvit  shall be filed within four weeks from today. Reply,  if
\nany, shall be filed within two weeks thereafter, the  matter
\nwill  be placed for final disposal on 24.10.1989 subject  to
\novernight part-heard. The promotion if given in the meantime
\nwill  be subject to the decision in the writ  petition.\t Mr.
\nK.K.  Venugopal, learned counsel states that the writ  peti-
\ntion  which  has been filed before the High  Court  will  be
\nwithdrawn.”\n<\/p>\n
    The\t Writ Petition came on for hearing before us on\t 5th
\nApril, 1990. Sri G. Ramaswamy, counsel for the Bank, put the
\nabove objections in the forefront as preliminary objections.
\nAfter  hearing\thim and the counsel for the  petitioner,  we
\ndirected the petitioner federation to file a better  affida-
\nvit explaining the correct position. In compliance with\t the
\ndirection  given by us, another affidavit has been filed  by
\nSri Umed Singh. In this affidavit, again, although  purport-
\ning to “tender an unqualified apology” for the\tmisstatement
\nin  the earlier affidavit, the deponent reiterated “that  he
\ndid  not  know on the date of swearing of the  affidavit  on
\n21.4.89\t that  some other office bearer\t of  the  petitioner
\nfederation  has\t filed such a petition”. He claims  to\thave
\ncome  to  know\tof it only on the 23rd April,  1989  from  a
\ntelephonic conversation with the Deputy Secretary and wishes
\nto  take  credit for the fact that he at once  informed\t his
\ncounsel about it who in turn brought it to the notice of the
\nCourt at the time of the preliminary hearing on 26th  April,
\n1989. The truth of these allegations is refuted on behalf of
\nthe Bank. It is submitted that the counsel for the petition-
\ner did not, even at the time of hearing on 26.4.89, bring to
\nthe notice of this Court the fact that he had filed a  peti-
\ntion in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. On the other hand, it
\nis claimed, it was the counsel for the Bank who was  present
\nand  who took notice on behalf of the Bank, that brought  to
\nthe  notice  of the Court that the  petitioner\thad  already
\nmoved  the Andhra Pradesh High Court in regard to  the\tsame
\nrelief\tand it was only thereafter that the counsel for\t the
\npetitioner made a statement that the petitioner would  with-
\ndrew  the petition filed in the Andhra Pradesh\tHigh  Court.
\nEven this, it is pointed out, they did not do immediately as
\nstated\tin Umed Singh’s affidavit for the said petition\t was
\nwithdrawn only much later on 27th of July, 1989.
\n    On\tbehalf of the Bank it is also pointed out  that\t the
\nstatement  made in the rejoinder filed by Umed\tSingh,\tsup-
\nported by his affidavit,
\n499<\/span>
\nthat the addresses of the 58 promotees was not known to\t the
\npetitioner is again a total falsehood as is demonstrated  by
\ntwo circumstances. In the first place, in the writ  petition
\nfiled in the Karnataka High Court, the petitioner there\t has
\njoined all the 58 officers as parties and an application was
\nmoved before the said High Court on 27th April, 89,  seeking
\nstay  of promotion of the said respondents. That  apart,  on
\n1st May, 89, a fortnightly bulletin issued by the State Bank
\nof  India  Officers’ Association (Mumbai circle),  which  is
\nadmitted  to  be one of the associations affiliated  to\t the
\npetitioner Federation, carries a message of  congratulations
\nto  all the 58 officers, who had been promoted\tw.e.f.\t24th
\nApril, 89. The names of all the 58 officers so promoted\t has
\nbeen set out in this bulletin.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthis  state of the record, learned counsel  for\t the
\nBank strongly urges that we should dismiss the writ petition
\nstraightaway on the ground that the petitioner has not\tcome
\nto Court with clean hands.\n<\/p>\n
    We\thave heard learned counsel on both sides at  length.
\nThere is no doubt left in our minds that the petitioner\t has
\nnot  only suppressed material facts in the petition but\t has
\nalso  tried to abuse judicial process. The explanation\tthat
\nthe  President of the Federation when he filed the  writ  in
\nthis Court on 21st April, 89, was not aware that a  petition
\nhad  been filed in the Andhra Pradesh High  Court  (repeated
\nfor a second time in the affidavit of 5th April’ 90) is,  in
\nour opinion, is totally unacceptable. Admittedly the federa-
\ntion was considerably agitated by the new promotion  policy.
\nThe matter was considered to be very urgent and the  federa-
\ntion was too keen to obtain a stay of implementation of\t the
\npolicy which, it feared. the Bank might do any day. In\tthis
\nsituation,  not even the most gullible of persons  would  be
\ncredulous  enough to accept the explanation that the  Deputy
\nGeneral\t Secretary  of the Federation had not  apprised\t the
\nPresident of their failure to obtain the stay order from the
\nAndhra\tPradesh High Court. It is totally unbelievable\tthat
\nbetween 13.4.89, when the interim application in the  Andhra
\nPradesh\t High Court was rejected and 21.4.89 when  the\twrit
\npetition was filed, the President was not aware of what\t had
\nhappened  in the High Court. It is deplorable that  such  an
\nexplanation  should  have been not only put forward  in\t the
\noriginal  rejoinder but should have been repeated  again  in
\nthe  latest affidavit. The petitioner had, in  our  opinion,
\ndeliberately  suppressed from the petition this crucial\t and
\nimportant  fact. As to the credit sought for having  brought
\nthis fact to the notice of the Court on 25.4.89. the circum-
\nstances suggest that perhaps they would not have brought  it
\nto the notice of the court at all had not counsel on  behalf
\nof the Bank been present. to receive notice
\n500<\/span>
\nwhen the matter was moved for admission on 26.4.89. whether,
\nas asserted by the counsel for the petitioner, the petition-
\ner  considered\tit prudent, in view of the presence  of\t the
\nBank’s counsel, to volunteer at the time of the said hearing
\nthe information that a petition had been filed in the Andhra
\nPradesh High Court and to offer an undertaking that it would
\nbe  withdrawn  or  whether, as alleged in  a  “statement  of
\nfacts”‘\t placed\t before us by Sri S.S  Sharma,\tthe  learned
\ncounsel for the Bank who appeared at the hearing, even\tthis
\ninformation had to be supplied to the Court by the Bank,  is
\na controversy into which we need not enter. We shall proceed
\non the assumption that the statement made by the counsel for
\nthe  petitioner is correct, but even that does\tnot  explain
\nwhy  a reference to the writ petition in the High Court\t was
\nnot  made  in the writ petition as it had to  be  made.\t The
\nstatement  in the affidavit of Umed Singh that\tno  petition
\nhad  been  filed in any High Court was clearly\tand  plainly
\nfalse.\n<\/p>\n
    It\tis  equally  clear that the statement  made  in\t the
\nrejoinder  affidavit  that “till today (i.e.  23rd  October,
\n1989) the petitioner federation is not aware of the names of
\nthe  promoted  officers” is again  an  incorrect  statement.
\nThese officers had been impleaded in the interim application
\nfor  the  relief sought against them in the  Karnataka\tHigh
\nCourt  as early as 27.4.89. That apart the federation  could
\nnot have been unaware of the contents of the bulletin issued
\nby the Mumbai circle of the SBI Officer’s Association issued
\non  1.5.89.  There is no doubt that the petitioner  did\t not
\ndeliberately implead the 58 promoted officers. Sri  Sachhar,
\nfor the petitioner, sought to contend that these 58 officers
\nmay  be\t proper\t parties but not necessary  parties  and  he
\nreferred  us to the judgments of this Court in\tThe  General
\nManager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and Another  v.
\nA.V.R.\tSiddhantti  and Ors., [1974] 4 S.C.C. 335  and\tCol.
\nD.D. Joshi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,<\/a> [1983] 2  S.C.C.\n<\/p>\n
235.  We  are not here concerned with the  question  whether
\nthese officers were necessary or proper parties and, indeed,
\nthis  issue is no longer alive as, subsequently,  the  peti-
\ntioner\titself has undertaken to implead these\t58  officers
\nand notices have been issued to them in both the writ  peti-
\ntions. What we are concerned here with is the statement,  in
\nthe rejoinder affidavit that the Federation was not aware of
\nthe  names of the 58 officers till November 1989  which,  in
\nthe circumstances is a clear misstatement.
\n    Apart from misstatements in the affidavits filed  before
\nthis  Court, the petitioner Federation has clearly  resorted
\nto  tactics  which  can only be described as  abuse  of\t the
\nprocess of court. The simultane-\n<\/p>\n
501<\/span><\/p>\n
ous  filing of writ petitions in various High Courts on\t the
\nsame issue though purportedly on behalf of different associ-
\nations of the Officers of the Bank, is a practice which\t has
\nto be discouraged. Sri Sachhar and Sri Ramamurthy wished  to
\npinpoint  the  necessity and importance of  petitions  being
\nfiled by different associations in order to discharge satis-
\nfactorily  their responsibilities towards  their  respective
\nmembers. We are not quite able to appreciate such  necessity
\nwhere there is no diversity but only a commonness of  inter-
\nest.  All that they had to do was to join forces and  demon-
\nstrate\ttheir unity by filing a petition in a Single  Court.
\nIt  seems the object here in filing different  petitions  in
\ndifferent Courts was a totally different and not very  laud-
\nable one. Again an attempt was made to obtain a stay in\t the
\nAndhra\tPradesh High Court and when that attempt failed\t the
\nwrit  petition here was filed. In this the petitioners\twere
\nable to obtain only an order that any promotions made during
\nthe  pendency of the petition would be subject to the  deci-
\nsion  in the writ petition. But, having obtained this  order
\non 26.4.89, it is curious and inexplicable that an affiliat-
\ned association should have made an application on 27.4.89 in
\nthe  Karnataka High Court praying for a stay of\t the  promo-
\ntions. These are only tactics that it will be indulged in by
\na  chronic and compulsive litigant and not by  a  federation
\nlike the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
    We\thave set out the facts in this case at\tsome  length
\nand passed a detailed order because we are deeply grieved to
\ncome  across  such conduct on the part\tof  an\tassociation,
\nwhich claims to represent high placed officers of a  premier
\nbank  of  this country. One expects such officers  to  fight
\ntheir  battles fairly and squarely and not to stoop  low  to
\ngain, what can only be, temporary victories by keeping\taway
\nmaterial facts from the court. It is common knowledge  that,
\nof late, statements are being made in petitions and  affida-
\nvits recklessly and without proper verification not to speak
\nof  dishonest and deliberate misstatements.  We,  therefore,
\ntake  this  opportunity to record our  strong  and  emphatic
\ndisapproval  of the conduct of the petitioners in this\tcase
\nand hope that this will be a lesson to the present petition-
\ner as well as to other litigants and that atleast in  future
\npeople will act more truthfully and with a greater sense  of
\nresponsibility.\n<\/p>\n
    The question that now remains to be considered is wheth-
\ner  the petition is liable to be dismissed for this  conduct
\nof  the President of the Federation. Sri  Rajendra  Sachhar,
\nappearing  on behalf of the petitioners, sought to get\tover
\nthe Bank’s objections by addressing certain technical  argu-
\nments.\tHe submitted that even if Writ Petition No. 507\/  89
\nwas liable to be dismissed for mis-statement and suppression
\nthere
\n502<\/span>
\nwould be no reason to dismiss C.W.P. No. 1260 of 1989  which
\nhas been filed by another association of the same  officers.
\nHe also sought to contend that, since it had been brought to
\nthe notice of this Court on 26.4.89 that a petition had been
\nfiled  in a High Court and that it was being withdrawn,\t the
\norder  passed  by this Court on 26.4.89 should be  taken  as
\nhaving condoned any mis-statement or mis-conduct or  defects
\nin  the writ petition. We are not inclined to  accept  these
\nsubmissions.  However, it is not necessary to  discuss\tthis
\naspect\tfurther\t as we do not wish to penalise\tthe  various
\nofficers who may suffer as a consequence of the new  policy,
\nwhich they wish to challenge, for the misstatements or wrong
\nsteps  taken by the Officers of the federation\tperhaps,  in
\ntheir  over-anxiety to get quick interim relief. We  do\t not
\nwish  to  decline them an opportunity to put  forward  their
\ngrievances  before the court by dismissing these writ  peti-
\ntions  on the preliminary objections raised by the Bank.  In
\nfact, we should like to place on record our appreciation  of
\nthe stand taken by Sri G. Ramaswamy, learned counsel for the
\nBank  in this respect. He fairly stated that, as he  is\t ap-
\npearing\t for a public sector undertaking, he is\t quite\tpre-
\npared to contest the writ petitions on their merits and that
\nhis preliminary objections were primarily intended to  bring
\nto  our notice the conduct of the petitioners in this  case.
\nWe  are\t glad he did it as this was a  matter  which  needed
\nserious notice. We should like to record our dis-approval of
\nthe  way  in which the proceedings have\t been  conducted  on
\nbehalf of the Federation.\n<\/p>\n
    However, as mentioned above, we overrule the preliminary
\nobjections and will proceed to dispose of the writ petitions
\non  their merits. The Writ Petitions are adjourned,  as\t per
\nseparate order, to 17.7.90 for further hearing.
\nN.V.K.\n<\/p>\n
503<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India All India State Bank Officers … vs Union Of India And Ors on 16 April, 1990 Equivalent citations: 1990 SCR (2) 493, 1990 SCC Supl. 336 Author: S Rangnathan Bench: Rangnathan, S. PETITIONER: ALL INDIA STATE BANK OFFICERS FEDERATIONTHROUGH ITS PRESIDEN Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT16\/04\/1990 […]<\/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-14491","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAll India State Bank Officers ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 16 April, 1990 - 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\/all-india-state-bank-officers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-16-april-1990\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"All India State Bank Officers ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 16 April, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-state-bank-officers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-16-april-1990\" \/>\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=\"1990-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-29T20:29:16+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-state-bank-officers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-16-april-1990#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-state-bank-officers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-16-april-1990\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"All India State Bank Officers … vs Union Of India And Ors on 16 April, 1990\",\"datePublished\":\"1990-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-29T20:29:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-state-bank-officers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-16-april-1990\"},\"wordCount\":3124,\"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\\\/all-india-state-bank-officers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-16-april-1990#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-state-bank-officers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-16-april-1990\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-state-bank-officers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-16-april-1990\",\"name\":\"All India State Bank Officers ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 16 April, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1990-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-29T20:29:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-state-bank-officers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-16-april-1990#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-state-bank-officers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-16-april-1990\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-state-bank-officers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-16-april-1990#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"All India State Bank Officers … vs Union Of India And Ors on 16 April, 1990\"}]},{\"@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":"All India State Bank Officers ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 16 April, 1990 - 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\/all-india-state-bank-officers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-16-april-1990","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"All India State Bank Officers ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 16 April, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-state-bank-officers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-16-april-1990","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1990-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-29T20:29:16+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-state-bank-officers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-16-april-1990#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-state-bank-officers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-16-april-1990"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"All India State Bank Officers … vs Union Of India And Ors on 16 April, 1990","datePublished":"1990-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-29T20:29:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-state-bank-officers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-16-april-1990"},"wordCount":3124,"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\/all-india-state-bank-officers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-16-april-1990#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-state-bank-officers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-16-april-1990","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-state-bank-officers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-16-april-1990","name":"All India State Bank Officers ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 16 April, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1990-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-29T20:29:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-state-bank-officers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-16-april-1990#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-state-bank-officers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-16-april-1990"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-state-bank-officers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-16-april-1990#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"All India State Bank Officers … vs Union Of India And Ors on 16 April, 1990"}]},{"@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\/14491","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=14491"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14491\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14491"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14491"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14491"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}