{"id":169678,"date":"1996-09-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-09-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-state-bankofficers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-13-september-1996"},"modified":"2017-07-01T19:20:58","modified_gmt":"2017-07-01T13:50:58","slug":"all-india-state-bankofficers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-13-september-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-state-bankofficers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-13-september-1996","title":{"rendered":"All India State Bankofficers … vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 September, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
All India State Bankofficers … vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 September, 1996<\/div>\n
Author: K B.N.<\/div>\n
Bench: Kirpal B.N. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nALL INDIA STATE BANKOFFICERS FEDERATION AND ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t13\/09\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nKIRPAL B.N. (J)\nBENCH:\nKIRPAL B.N. (J)\nVERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t    WITH
\n\t     WRIT PETITION (C) No. 1260 OF 1989
\nNational Federation of State
\nBank Officers and Anr.\n<\/p>\n
V.\n<\/p>\n
Union of India and Ors.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nKirpal, J.\n<\/p>\n
     The All  India State Bank Officers Federation, which is
\nregistered as  a trade\tunion of  the officers\tof the State
\nBank of\t India working throughout the country, is seeking to
\nchallenge a  new promotional policy framed by the respondent
\nbank on\t 7th March,  1989 relating to the promotion from the
\npost of\t Senior Management  Grade Scale\t V to  Top Executive
\nGrade Scale VI.\n<\/p>\n
     The respondent  bank was  bank was\t established by\t the
\nState Bank  of India  Act, 1955\t (for short  ‘the Act’)\t and
\naccording to  Section 17  of the  said Act its Management is
\nentrusted to  the Central  Board constituted  under the Act.
\nUnder Section  43 of  the said\tAct the Bank is empowered to
\nappoint such  number of\t officers, advisers and employees as
\nit  considers  necessary  on  desirable\t for  the  efficient
\nperformance of its functions.  Sub-section [1] of Section 43
\ngives  the  bank  the  power  to  determine  the  terms\t and
\nconditions of the appointment of such persons.\n<\/p>\n
     The Bank framed State Bank of India (Supervising Staff)
\nService Rules, 1975, in exercise of its powers under Section
\n43 of  the Act.\t  These\t rules deal  with various grades and
\nscales\tof   officers,\tconduct\t rules,\t salary,  seniority,
\npromotion etc.\t Again,\t under Section\t43 of  the Act,\t the
\nCentral Board  of the  bank framed  the State  Bank of India
\nOfficers (Determination\t of Terms and Conditions of Service)
\nOrder 1979  (hereinafter referred to as ‘DTCS Order’).\tThis
\nOrder deals  with various  grades and  scales  of  officers,
\nsalary perquisites,  appointments, probation,  confirmation,
\npromotion, age\tof retirement  rules, terminal benefits etc.
\nThe grades and scales of officers are as follow:-\n<\/p>\n
     \"From 1.10.79\t    From 1.2.84\n     (consequent upon\t    (consequent upon\n     revision of\t    wage revision)\n     service\n     conditions)\n     Junior Management\t    Junior\n     Grade I and all\t    Management Gr. I\n     officer Gr. II\n     Middle Management\t    Middle\n     Grade Scale II\t    Management\n\t\t\t    Grade Scale II\n     Middle Management\t    Middle\n     Grade  Scale III\t    Management\n\t\t\t    Grade Scale III\n     Senior Management\t    Senior Management\n     Grade Scale IV\t    Grade Scale IV\n     Senior Management\t    Senior Management\n     Grade Scale IVA\t    Grade Scale V\n     Senior Management\t    Top Executive\n     Grade Scale V\t    Grade Scale VI\n\t\t\t    Dy. General Manager\n     Top Executive Grade    Top Executive\n     Scale VII\t\t    Grade VII-\n     General Managers\t    General Managers\n     Top Executive Grade    Top Executive\n     Scale VII\t\t    Grade Special\n     Chief General\t    Scale II- Chief\n     Managers\t\t    General Managers\n     Top Executive Grade    Top Executive\n     Special Scale I\t    Grade Special\n     Dy. Managing\t    Scale II- Dy.\n     Directors\t\t    Managing\n\t\t\t    Directors\"\n<\/pre>\n
     Paragraph 17  of the DTCS Order specifically deals with
\npromotion of staff and is as under:-\n<\/p>\n
     “Promotioins  to\tall  grades   of
\n     officers in  the Bank shall be made
\n     in accordance  with the policy laid
\n     down by  the Central  Board or  the
\n     Executive Committee  from\ttime  to
\n     time.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In exercise  of the  powers under\tthis  paragraph\t the
\nCentral Board  of the  Bank has,  from time  to\t time,\tbeen
\ndetermining the\t policy for  promotion to  various grades of
\nscales of  officers.   The policy  for promotion from Senior
\nManagement Grade  Scale V  to Top  Executive Grade Scale VI,
\nwith which we are concerned in the present petition, and Top
\nExecutive Grade\t Scale VI  to Top  Executive Grade Scale VII
\nwas framed  by the Central Board in its meeting held on 28th
\nNovember,  1975\t  onwards  the\t Central  Board\t approved  a
\npromotion  policy  under  which\t assignment  appraisals\t and
\ninterviews were\t made the  two components  of the  selection
\nprocedure.     According  to   the   petitioners   zone\t  of
\nconsideration from  amongst the\t eligible officers  had been
\nvarying from  time to  time.   Generally the  Bank had\tbeen
\nfollowing a  ratio of  1 :  3 or 1 : 4 between the number of
\nvacancies and  the number  of candidates.  The Central Board
\nat  its\t  meeting  held\t  on  8th   June,  1982\t approved  a
\nmodification in\t the promotion\tpolicy\tin  terms  of  which
\nofficers with  two years  service in Senior Management Grade
\nScale V\t were to  be eligible for promotion to Top Executive
\nGrade Scale  VI and  officers with  two years service in Top
\nExecutive Grade\t Scale VI  were to be eligible for promotion
\nto Top\tExecutive Grade\t Scale VII.   It is an admitted fact
\nthat as the zone of consideration was restricted to three to
\nfour times  the number of vacancies, the candidates two were
\nactually considered  for promotion  to Top  Executive  Grade
\nScale had  put in  a minimum five to six years of service in
\nScale IV,  even though the minimum eligibility condition was
\nof only two years service.\n<\/p>\n
     In its  meeting held  on 7th  March, 1989,\t the Central
\nBoard of  the  Bank  made  two\tmodifications  in  the\tthen
\nexisting policy which were as follow:-\n<\/p>\n
i)   The  eligibility\tcriterion  for\t consideration\t for
\npromotion to  Top Executive  Grade Scale  VI was  refixed at
\nfour years  service in\tthe previous grade\/scale, instead of
\nthe existing two years service.\n<\/p>\n
ii)  Previously evaluation of the eligible officers was done
\nby allotment  of marks\ton  the\t performance  appraisal\t and
\ninterview.   An aggregate  of 200 marks were being allotted;
\n100 marks  used to be allotted for performance appraisal and
\nanother 100  marks for interview.  The qualifying marks both
\nfor performance\t appraisal and\tinterview were\t60  percent.
\nNow as\ta result of the modification made on 7th March, 1989
\nout of\tthe aggregate  of 200  marks,  150  marks  were\t now
\nallotted for  performance appraisal  (in lieu of the earlier
\n100 marks)  and 50  marks (in lieu of the earlier 100 marks)
\nhad been  allotted for\tinterview.  The qualifying marks for
\nperformance appraisal had been changed from 60 percent to 80
\npercent, while\tthe qualifying\tmarks for interview remained
\nunaltered at 60 percent.\n<\/p>\n
     The manner\t in which the performance has been appraised
\nhas also  undergone a  change from time to time.  Since long
\nthere  had   been  in  force  a\t system\t of  writing  annual
\nconfidential reports.\tSince long there had been in force a
\nsystem of  writing annual  confidential reports.  Since 1974
\nor 1975 a system of assignment appraisal was also introduced
\nby  the\t  bank.\t    In\tthe  year  1986,  according  to\t the
\npetitioners, the  bank brought\tabout further  change in the
\nsystem of  performance appraisal.  The old system of writing
\nof annual  confidential reports was substituted by a new and
\nmore open  and participatary appraisal system.\tAccording to
\nthe writ  petition in  this new\t system the  appraise got an
\nopportunity of\twriting self  appraisal.   However, this new
\nsystem\t was\tnot   introduced    throughout\t the\tbank
\nsimultaneously.\t  The old  system  of  recording  of  annual
\nconfidential reports  remained in  position  till  that\t was
\ngradually replaced  by the  self appraisal  system.  We were
\ninformed that now since 1990 the system invoked is only that
\nof self\t appraisal and\tthe old\t system\t of  writing  annual
\nconfidential reports no longer exists.\n<\/p>\n
     The  writ\tpetition  has  been  filed  challenging\t the
\naforesaid modification\tin the\tpromotion policy  which\t was
\napproved by  the Central  Broad in  its meeting\t held on 7th
\nMarch, 1989.   There  are various  grounds of  attack to the
\nresolution approving  the new  promotion policy.  It is also
\nthe case  of the  petitioners that  the manner\tin which the
\nprocess of promotion has been undertaken was defective.\n<\/p>\n
     The main  thrust of  arguments of\tMr. Rajindar Sachar,
\nlearned\t senior\t  counsel  appearing   on  behalf   of\t the
\npetitioners, was  that it  was unreasonable not to limit the
\nzone of\t consideration to  three to four times the number of
\nvacancies.  As a result of the new policy, it was submitted,
\na much larger number of relatively junior officers have been
\nconsidered and\tpromoted.   In order to show that in justice
\nhad been  done to  senior eligible  officers, as a result of
\nthe change  in the  policy, our\t attention was\tdrawn to the
\nfollowing statement  with regard  to the  filling up  of  58
\nvacancies in Scale VII on selection made in 1989:-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  No. of\t    No. of\t    No. of\n\t\t  officers\t    officers\t    officers\n\t\t  who\t\t    who\t\t    promoted\n\t\t  qualified\t    qualified\n\t\t  with 70%\t    with 60%\n\t\t  marks in\t    marks in\n\t\t  the past\t    the\n\t\t  performance\t    interview\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t  ——————————————<\/p>\n
\nTotal number\nof officers\nconsidered\nunder the\nimpugned policy\t       270\t\t104\t       58\nand belonging\nto the 1982, 1983\n1984 and left\nover of earlier\nbatches.\n498<\/span>\nNumber of\nofficers\nbelonging to the\n1982 and left over\t102\t\t  62\t\t16\nof earlier batches\nout of the total of\n498 officers\nconsidered.\n212<\/span>\n<\/pre>\n
————————————————————
\nThe  contention\t on  behalf  of\t the  petitioners  and\tthat
\neligible candidates  after the\t1982 batch  should not\thave
\nbeen considered\t and if\t the zone  of consideration had been
\nlimited to  three to  four times  than the  field of  choice
\nwould have  been restricted and only those officers who were
\nin Scale  V in\tthe year  1982 or  earlier would  have\tbeen
\nconsidered and\tpromoted.  In support of his contention that
\ndoing  away   with  the\t  zone\tof   consideration  was\t not
\nreasonable, reliance  was placed  on the  decision  of\tthis
\nCourt in  the Case of Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Haryana
\n[ (1985) 4 SCC 417 ].\n<\/p>\n
     Ashok  Kumar   Yadav’s  case  was\tconcerned  with\t the
\nrecruitments made  by the  Haryana Public Service Commission
\nto 61  posts in\t Haryana Civil Service (Executive) and other
\nallied\tservices.    The  relevant  rules  provided  that  a
\ncompetitive examination was to be held consisting of written
\nexamination in\tdifferent papers  having an aggregate of 700
\nmarks and  a viva  voce examination carrying 200 marks.\t The
\nrules, inter  alia, further  provided that  no candidate was
\neligible to  appear in the viva voce test unless he obtained
\n45 percent  marks in  aggregate in  all the  subjects.\t  In
\nresponse to  the said  advertisement 6000 candidates applied
\nand appeared  for the  written examination  and out of these
\nover 1300  secured 45  percent marks  and had thus qualified
\nfor  being  called  for\t the  interview\t or  the  viva\tvoce
\nexamination.  Though originally the recruitment was only for
\n61 posts  but during the time when the selection process was
\nunder way a total number of 119 posts became available.\t The
\nHaryana Public\tService Commission  invited all the 1300 and
\nodd candidates\twho had qualified for the viva voce test and
\nthe interview  lasted for  almost half a year.\tOn the basis
\nof the\ttotal marks  obtained in  the written examination as
\nwell as\t viva voce  test 119  candidates were  selected\t and
\nrecommended by the Commission to the State Government.\tSome
\nof the\tcandidates  who\t were  not  selected  filed  a\twrit
\npetition in  the Punjab\t and Haryana  High Court challenging
\nthe said  selection.\tFive  of  the  selected\t candidates,
\nincluding Ashok Kumar, were impleaded as respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Division  Bench of  the High Court allowed the writ
\npetition and held that the Haryana Public Service Commission
\nshould not  have called for interview all the candidates who
\nhad obtained  more than\t 45 percent  marks  in\tthe  written
\nexamination and\t the number  of candidates  to be called for
\ninterview should  not have  exceeded  twice  or\t thrice\t the
\nnumber of  vacancies required to be filled.  This was one of
\nthe grounds  on which the selection of Ashok Kumar and other
\ncandidates was\tquashed.   Thereupon appeals  were filed  by
\nAshok Kumar  Yadav and\tthe State  of Haryana.\tTheir appeal
\nwas allowed  by this  Court and\t the selection\tmade by\t the
\nHaryana Public Service Commission was upheld.  While dealing
\nwith the  submissions relating to the Haryana Public Service
\nCommission calling  all the 1300 and odd candidates for viva
\nvoce test,  who had  secured 45 percent or more marks in the
\nwritten examination  for only  61 seats,  it was observed by
\nthis Court  that merely\t because minimum  qualification\t for
\neligibility to\tappear at the viva voic test two a candidate
\nwas to\tobtain atleast\t45 percent marks in the aggregate in
\nthe  written   examination  the\t  Haryana   Public   Service
\nCommission was\tunder no  obligation to\t call for  viva voce
\ntest  all   the\t candidates   who  satisfied   the   minimum
\neligibility requirements.   It was open to the Commission to
\ncall for  viva voce  test of  a limited number of candidates
\nwho figured  at the  top of  the list.\t After\treferring to
\nKothari\t Committee’s   Report  of  “Recruitment\t Policy\t and
\nSelection Mexhoa  for the Civil Service Examination” at page
\n447 it was observed as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
     “We are  therefore of the view that
\n     where there  is  a\t composite  test
\n     consisting of a written examination
\n     followed by  a viva  voce test, the
\n     number of\tcandidates to  be called
\n     for interview in order of the marks
\n     obtained\t  in\t the\t written
\n     examination,  should   not\t  exceed
\n     twice or at the highest, thrice the
\n     number of\tvacancies to  be filled.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The    Haryana    Public\t Service
\n     Commission\t in   the  present  case
\n     called for interview all candidates
\n     numbering over  1300 who  satisfied
\n     the minimum eligibility requirement
\n     by securing  a minimum of 45% marks
\n     in the written examination and this
\n     was certainly not right, but we may
\n     point out\tthat in\t doing\tso,  the
\n     Haryana Public  Service  Commission
\n     could not be said to be actuated by
\n     any mala  fide or\toblique\t motive,
\n     because  it   was\t common\t  ground
\n     between the  parties that\tthis was
\n     the  practice   which   was   being
\n     consistently   followed\tby   the
\n     Haryana Public  Service  Commission
\n     over the years and what was done in
\n     this case was nothing exceptional.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Relying upon the aforesaid passage it was strongly contended
\nby Mr.\tSachar that  the policy of 7th March, 1989 which did
\naway with  the concept\tof zone of consideration was clearly
\ncontrary to  the aforesaid  observations of  this  Court  in
\nAshok Kumar Yadav’s case.\n<\/p>\n
     In our  opinion Ashok  Kumar Yadav’s  case can be of no
\nassistance to  the petitioners.\t  It  is no  doubt true that
\nthis Court  did make  the  aforesaid  observation  that\t the
\nnumber of  candidates to  be called for interview should not
\nexceed\ttwice  or  at  the  highest  thrice  the  number  of
\nvacancies to  be filled.   Never  the less after making this
\nobservation the\t Court posed  a question as to “whether this
\nhad any\t invalidating effect  on the  selections made by the
\nHaryana Public\tService Commission.”  The answer to this was
\nprovided in  the subsequent paragraph in the following words
\n“We do\tnot think  that the  selection made  by the  Haryana
\nPublic Service\tCommission could  be  said  to\tbe  vitiated
\nmerely\ton  the\t ground\t that  as  many\t as  1300  and\tmore
\ncandidates representing more than twenty times the number of
\navailable vacancies were called for interview, though on the
\nview taken by us that was not the right course to follow and
\nnot more  than twice  or at the highest thrice the number of
\ncandidates  should  have  been\tcalled\tfor  the  interview.
\nSomething more than merely calling an unduly large number of
\ncandidates  for\t  interview  must   be\tshown  in  order  to
\ninvalidate the selections made.”\n<\/p>\n
     It is  clear from\tthe aforesaid that this Court was of
\nthe opinion  that while\t it was desirable that the number of
\ncandidates who\twere called for viva voce examination should
\nnot be unduly large but it did not agree with the conclusion
\nof the\tHigh Court  that calling  large number of candidates
\ninvalidated the\t selection.   In other\twords not  having  a
\nrestricted zone of consideration was not regarded as illegal
\nor bad\tin law.\t  An unduly large number of candidates to be
\ninterviewed  may   make\t it   impossible  to   carry  out  a
\nsatisfactory viva voce test and the interview may tend to be
\ncasual,\t superficial   or  sloppy.\tThe   above   quoted
\nobservations are  only words  of caution  lest the viva voce
\ntest be reduced to farce.  Notwithstanding the fact that the
\nCourt did  not approve of a large number of candidates being
\ncalled for interview, nevertheless the selections so made by
\nthe Haryana  Public Service  Commission were not invalidated
\nby this\t Court and  the judgment  of the  High Court was set
\naside and the selection made was upheld.\n<\/p>\n
     Whereas in\t Ashok Kumar  Yadav’s case for 61 vacancies,
\nwhich were originally notified, 1300 and odd candidates were
\ncalled for  viva voce  examination and\tthis Court held that
\nthis was  not invalid,\tin the present case for 58 vacancies
\nonly 498  eligible officers  were considered for  promotion.
\nApplying the  ratio of\tdecision of Ashok Kumar Yadav’s case
\nto the\tfacts of the present case it cannot be said that the
\npolicy\tof   considering  all\tthe  eligible  officers\t for
\npromotion, without having a restricted zone of consideration
\nis in  any way\tbad in\tlaw.   In fact\tin  this  manner  no
\neligible  officer   can\t have  a  grievance,  which  may  be
\nlegitimate, that  he was  not considered  even though he was
\neligible.\n<\/p>\n
     Our attention was also drawn to the case of V.J. Thomas
\nand Ors.  Vs. Union  of India  and Ors.\t [1985 Supp. SCC 7].
\nThe decision  in this  case has\t no application here because
\nthere the  Court was concerned with a case where it was held
\nthat if\t the vacancies\twere few,  and the  candidates\twere
\ndisproportionately large  in number, department could make a
\nclassification amongst\teligible candidates  on the basis of
\ntheir length of experience so as to restrict the examination
\nonly for  those having\tlonger\tservice\t leaving  others  to
\nappear in  the next  examination.  Similarly the decision in
\nS.B. Mathur  and Ors.  Vs. Chief Justice of Delhi High Court
\nand Ors.  [ 1989 Supp. (1) SCC 34 ] holding that the zone of
\nconsideration or  field\t of  choice  can  be  limited  to  a
\nmultiple of  number of vacancies, on the basis of seniority,
\nhas no\tapplication to\tthe point in issue here. In fact the
\nCourt referred\tto the\tdecision in Ashok Kumar Yadav’s case
\n(supra) and,  in principle  to\tthe  observations  on  which
\nreliance has  been placed by Mr. Sachar, and it was observed
\nat page 51 para 19 as under:-\n<\/p>\n
     “The Bench,  however,  went  on  to
\n     hold  that,  in  its  view,  merely
\n     because the  Haryana Public Service
\n     Commission had  called all the 1300
\n     candidates who  obtained 45 percent
\n     or\t more\tmarks  in   the\t written
\n     examination  to   appear\tin   the
\n     interview that  did not  invalidate
\n     the selection  made.  This decision
\n     points   out   that   the\t minimum
\n     eligibility qualification has to be
\n     kept  distinct  from  the\tzone  of
\n     consideration and even if there are
\n     a large  number of\t candidates  who
\n     satisfy  the   minimum  eligibility
\n     requirement  it   is   not\t  always
\n     required that should be included in
\n     the zone of consideration, it being
\n     open to  the authority concerned to
\n     restrict the  zone of consideration
\n     amongst the  eligible candidates in
\n     any reasonable manner.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Our attention  has not  been drawn\t to any\t decision or
\nobservation of\tthis Court  which has taken a contrary view.
\nHaving a  reasonable eligibility condition, as four years in
\nthe present case, may become meaningless if all the eligible
\nofficers are  not considered  for promotion.   By increasing
\nthe number  of years  from two\tto four\t the field  has been
\nsomewhat restricted and considering that selection has to be
\nmade only  on the  basis of merit, it is not unreasonable to
\ngive an\t opportunity to all the eligible officers to compete
\nwith each  other and  for the  best persons  to be selected.
\nMoreover, this\tcase relates  to in  service promotion while
\nAshok Kumar Yadav was a case of direct recruitment.  We are,
\ntherefore, unable  to agree  with the  petitioners that\t the
\nchange of  the policy brought by the Board in its meeting on
\n7th March, 1989 in this regard is in any way bad in law.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  then contended  that on  23rd  June,  1986\t the
\nGovernment  of\t India,\t Ministry  of  Finance,\t had  issued
\nguidelines under  Regulation  17  of  the  officers  Service
\nRegulations.   In the  said guidelines it was mentioned that
\nthe number  of persons\tto be  considered for promotion from
\none scale  to another should normally be restricted to three
\nto  four  times\t the  number  of  vacancies  for  which\t the
\npromotions are\tbeing considered.   The\t modification on 7th
\nMarch, 1989  in the  promotion\tpolicy,\t it  was  submitted,
\nshould not  have been  done in\ta way  which was in conflict
\nwith the said guidelines and, therefore, doing away with the
\nzone of consideration was not warranted.\n<\/p>\n
     We do  not find  any merit in this contention, for more
\nreasons than  one.   Firstly,  these  guidelines  have\tbeen
\nissued by  the Government under the Regulations framed under
\nthe Banking regulations Act, which Act does not apply to the
\nState Bank  of India.\tThe  said letter of 23rd June, 1986,
\nenclosing  the\t guidelines,  is   addressed  to  the  Chief
\nExecutives of  twenty nationalised  banks and only a copy of
\nthe same  was marked to the Chairman of the respondent bank.
\nAs far\tas the\tState Bank of India is concerned the Central
\nGovernment can\tissue directions  under Section\t 18  of\t the
\nState Bank  of India  Act, 1955\t and no\t directions in\tthis
\nbehalf have  been issued.   Furthermore as far as State Bank
\nof India  is concerned\tparagraph 17  of the  DTCS Order  of
\n1979, which  has been  quoted earlier,\tempowers the Central
\nBoard or  the Executive\t Committee  to\tlay  down  a  policy
\nregarding promotions  to all grades of officers in the Bank.
\nThe aforesaid  guidelines which\t have been  issued expressly
\nrelate to  the nationalized banks, and not to the State Bank
\nof India,  and cannot  be regarded  as directions  which are
\nissued under  Section 18  of the State Bank of India Act, as
\nwas  sought   to  be   suggested  by  the  counsel  for\t the
\npetitioners.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  then contended by Mr. Sachar that the change in
\nthe policy  in 1989  was motivated  with a  view to  benefit
\nrespondents 4 and 5.  The allegation in the writ petition in
\nthis regard  was that  respondent no. 4 was working as Chief
\nOfficer (Industrial  Relations) in the central office of the
\nbank and  was of 1984 batch officer in scale IV.  Respondent
\nno. 5  was also\t a scale  V officer  of 1983  batch and\t was
\nworking as  Private Secretary to the chairman of the Bank at
\nCentral Office,\t Bombay.   It was alleged that on account of
\nthe positions  so held\tthey  wielded  a  lot  of  power  in
\ndetermining the\t personal  policies  of\t the  bank.    These
\nrespondents, it\t was  alleged,\tsucceeded  in  getting\tsome
\nimaginary hardships  of junior scale IV officers highlighted
\nin the conference of Chief General Managers held in January,
\n1988.\tIn proof  of the influence which respondents 4 and 5
\nhad, it\t was submitted\tthat the memorandum dated 2nd March,
\n1989 containing\t the  proposal\tfor  the  amendment  in\t the
\npromotion policy  was not  included as an agenda item of the
\nmeeting of  the Central\t Board which  was to  be held on 7th
\nMarch, 1989,  and  was\tnot  circulated\t in  advance.\t The
\nmemorandum was\tpresented before  the Board  as a table item
\nand the\t Chairman, it  was  contended,\tought  not  to\thave
\nallowed the  introduction of  this  memorandum\twithout\t its
\nbeing included as a regular item on the agenda.\n<\/p>\n
     The allegations  relating to  mala fides so made in the
\nwrit petition  have been  denied in  the affidavit  filed on
\nbehalf of  the respondent  bank.    It\thas  been  explained
\ntherein that  the Chief\t General  Managers  and\t others\t top
\nexecutives are\tconcerned  with\t the  development  of  human
\nresources.   As\t such,\tall  policy  matters,  before  being
\nformulated are\tdiscussed with\tChief General Managers at an
\nappropriate forum.   It\t is often such a conference was held
\nthat various  suggestions and  views had emerged.  They were
\nexamined by a group headed by a Senior Managing Director and
\nother senior functionaries.  A report submitted by the group
\nfunctionaries.\t A report  submitted by\t the group  was then
\nexamined by  the Central  Management Committee\tof the\tbank
\nwhich  decided\t that  the   recommendations  of  the  Cadre
\nManagement Group,  relating to\tpromotions to  Top Executive
\nGrade  Scale   VI  and\t VII,  be  accepted  and  should  be
\nimplemented from by the Central Management Committee in late
\nFebruary, 1989.\t As certain vacancies in these Scales VI and
\nbeen identified,  the Central Management Committee felt that
\nthese positions should be filled up[ as early as possible so
\nthat important\tpositions in  the bank do not remain vacant.
\nOn 2nd\tMarch. 1989  the Deputy Managing Director (Personnel
\nand Systems)  prepared and  signed a  memorandum seeking the
\napproval of the Central Board of the said policy.  A meeting
\nof the\tCentral Broad  had already been fixed for 7th March,
\n1989 and  the next meeting was expected to be held after one
\nand a  half or\ttwo months.   With  a view  to expedite\t the
\nconsideration  of  the\tchange\tin  the\t policy\t the  Deputy
\nManaging  Director  sent  the  memorandum  to  the  Managing
\ndirector and  the Chairman.   The  Chairman and the Managing
\nDirector agreed\t that the  memorandum be  put to the Central
\nBoard at its meeting to be held on 7th March, 1989.  By that
\ntime the  usual agenda\titems fixed  earlier for the Central
\nBoard meeting  had already been circulated.  It was in these
\ncircumstances that  the item  was placed  as a table item at
\nthe Central  Board meeting  held on 7th March, 1989 with the
\nconsent of  the Chairman  and the Directors who were present
\nat the meeting.\t It was also denied that the policy had been
\nmodified  with\t a  view   to  help  respondents  4  and  5.
\nAllegations of mala fides were denied.\n<\/p>\n
     In view  of the aforesaid explanation of the respondent
\nbank, which we see no reason to disbelieve, it is clear that
\nthe petitioners\t have made baseless and reckless allegations
\nof mala\t fides. Respondents  4 and 5 obviously had no direct
\nor indirect  role to  play either  in the formulation of the
\npolicy or  in the memorandum being placed as a table item to
\nbe taken  up for  consideration in  the meeting\t held on 7th
\nMarch, 1989.   The modification was approved by the Chairman
\nand all the Directors who were present in the meeting of the
\nBoard.\tFor an allegation of mala fide to succeed it must be
\nconclusively  shown   that  respondents\t  4  and  5  wielded
\ninfluence over all the members of the Board who were present
\nin the said meeting.  No such allegation has been made.\t The
\ndecision to  modify the\t promotion policy  was\ttaken  by  a
\ncompetent authority,  namely, the  Central Board  in a\tduly
\nconstituted meeting  held on  7th March,  1989\tand  we\t are
\nunable to  accept that this change in the policy was brought
\nabout solely with a view to help respondents 4 and 5.\n<\/p>\n
     There is  yet another reason why this contention of the
\npetitioners must fail. It is now settled law that the person
\nagainst whom  mala fides are alleged must be made a party to
\nthe proceeding.\t  The allegation that the policy was amended
\nwith a\tview to\t benefit respondents 4 and 5 would amount to
\nthe petitioners\t contending that  the Board  of Directors of
\nthe  Bank   sought  to\tfavour\trespondents  4\tand  5\tand,
\ntherefore, agreed  to the  proposal put\t before it.  Neither
\nthe Chairman nor the Directors, who were present in the said
\nmeeting, have  been impleaded as respondents.  This being so
\nthe petitioners\t cannot be  allowed to raise the allegations
\nof mala fide, which allegations, in fact, are without merit.\n<\/p>\n
      It  was also  submitted that  the change in the policy
\nwas completely\tarbitrary and  without any  reason.   We are
\nunable to  accept this contention.  The respondent bank is a
\nbusiness  organisation\t and  it   must\t identify  the\tbest
\navailable talent in the organisation for holding challenging
\nassignments in\tthe top\t executive grades.  There is nothing
\nwrong if  the bank devised a policy defining the eligibility
\nnorms on  a realistic basis and devised a system whereby the
\nbest available\ttalent would  be chosen\t to man the critical
\npositions.   Keeping this  objective in\t view the changes in
\nthe promotion  policy have  been made.\tIt is always for the
\nemployer to  see how  to promote and utilise the best talent
\navailable  in\tthe  organisation.    The  promotion  policy
\noriginally framed  in the  year 1975  has been\tamended from
\ntime to time. The changes have now been made in 1989 keeping
\nin mind\t the requirement  of  the  bank\t and  based  on\t the
\nexperience of  the bank\t in regard  to making  selection for
\npromotion.   The changes  so  made  cannot  be\tregarded  as
\narbitrary and  the Court  cannot sit in appeal and decide as
\nto what\t is good  for the institution.\tUnder the new policy
\nthe petitioners are also eligible for consideration and they
\ncannot have  any grievance  because certain persons who were
\neligible under\tthe old\t policy, but  in practice  were\t not
\nconsidered for\tpromotion, are\tnow considered under the new
\npolicy.\t  The object  of the new policy seems to be not only
\nto redress  the injustice  to those  officers  resulting  on
\naccount of the difference between the rules and the practice
\nbut also  with the  object of  selecting the best talent for
\nthe top executive posts.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  next contended  that a uniform system of apprai
\nsing the work was not followed which has caused prejudice to
\na section of the employees of the bank.\t Prior to April 1986
\nappraisal used to be on the basis of the annual confidential
\nreports.  With effect from April, 1986 a new system known as
\nannual appraisal  system was  introduced.    Under  the\t new
\nsystem the  appraisal report  starts with  the writing by an
\nemployee himself, which is called self appraisal. It is then
\nforwarded to  the superior  authorities who record their own
\nremarks on  the performance  of the  employee concerned.  As
\nalready\t noticed   this\t self\tappraisal  system   was\t not
\napplicable  in\t respect  of   all  the\t  candidates.\t The
\ncomparative merit  was assessed by taking into consideration
\nthe  annual   confidential  reports  in\t the  case  of\tsome
\nemployees and  the new\tperformance appraisal reports in the
\ncase of\t others.  Alleging that this has caused prejudice to
\nthose  employee\t  whose\t annual\t confidential  reports\twere
\nconsidered  the\t submission  made  was\tthat  the  procedure
\nadopted was discriminating.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  no doubt true that in the case of some employees
\nannual confidential  reports were considered and in the case
\nof  other   employees  assignment   appraisal  reports\twere
\nconsidered.   In our opinion, however, this cannot be a good
\nground for holding that the selection is vitiated.  Firstly,
\nno particulars have been given in the writ petition in order
\nto  show   that\t the  officers\tin  whose  case\t the  annual
\nconfidential  reports\twere  considered   had\tsuffered   a
\ndisadvantage.\tIf the\tpetitioners were  serious in raising
\nthis contention\t they would have given particulars as to how
\nmany of\t the 58\t officers who  were selected  were those  in
\nwhose case  annual confidential\t reports were considered and
\nhow many  were those  in whose case the assignment appraisal
\nreports were  considered.  In the absence of this basic fact
\nit cannot  be presumed\tthat the  section of  the  employees
\nwhose  annual\tconfidential  reports  were  considered\t had
\nsuffered a  disadvantage.   Furthermore confronted  with the
\nsituation  whether   the  performance  of  the\tofficer\t was
\nrecorded in  two different  types of  reports the management
\nhad, as\t of necessity,\tto consider  the same  and  evaluate
\nthem.  Even though the assignment appraisal reporting system
\nmay be\tan improvement\tin the\texisting system\t of  writing
\nannual confidential  reports, the performance of the officer
\nconcerned  could   have\t been  determined  from\t the  annual
\nconfidential reports.\tIn  fact this  was being done before
\nthe gradual  introduction  of  appraisal  reporting  system.
\nEach report  of an  officer, whether  an annual confidential
\nreport or  assignment appraisal report, had to be considered
\non its own and the performance assessed.  It is only if they
\nreceived 70  percent marks  on the  basis of this assessment
\nthat they  were eligible for being called for the interview.
\nThere is  nothing  to  suggest\tthat  such  assessment,\t and
\nassignment of marks, on the basis of the annual confidential
\nreport or  the assignment  appraisal report  could not\thave
\nbeen given.  It is, therefore, not possible to hold that the
\nconsideration of  two types  of reports\t had resulted in any
\ndiscrimination.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  then submitted  that under\t the existing policy
\nthe performance\t appraisal comprised  of self  appraisal and
\nannual confidential  reports for six years.  With the change
\nin the\teligibility norm to four years instead of the actual
\nfive\/six years\tservice, it  was submitted, there was a need
\nfor reducing  the consideration\t of period of appraisal from
\nsix years  to four  years. As  this has\t not been  done\t the
\njunior officers\t who were considered were at an advantageous
\nposition because  their performance in Scale V as well as in
\nthe lower  Scale IV  was considered  whereas in\t the case of
\nsenior officers\t their performance  in\tScale  V  alone\t was
\nconsidered because  they had  rendered more than five to six
\nyears service in that grade.\n<\/p>\n
     In reply  the respondent  bank  in\t its  affidavit\t has
\nexplained as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
     “So far as assignment appraisal are
\n     concerned the assignment in respect
\n     of positions held during the past 6
\n     years are\tassessed irrespective of
\n     the posts\theld.\t This  has  been
\n     followed even under the pre-revised
\n     promotion\t policy,    i.e.,   when
\n     eligibility criterion  was 2  years
\n     of\t service   both\t in  policy  and
\n     practice.\t The same continued even
\n     when officers were considered after
\n     5\/6  years.     For   the\timpugned
\n     promotion as  well the  same  thing
\n     has been  followed.   There was  no
\n     need  to\treduce\tthe   period  of
\n     assignment.     Appraisal\t to   be
\n     considered from 6 years to 4 years.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It is  reiterated that  the  Annual
\n     Confidential reports  for\t5  years
\n     and  Assignment   Appraisal  for  6
\n     years    irrespective     of    the
\n     assignment held have been uniformly
\n     assessed in  respect  of  officers.
\n     Since 5  years Annual  Confidential
\n     Reports  were   to\t be  considered,
\n     reports   starting\t  from\t as   on
\n     31.12.84 to  31.12.88 or thereafter
\n     were considered  in respect  of all
\n     officers.\tAs such, even in respect
\n     of an  officer in Senior Management
\n     Grade  Scale   V  of  1.8.84  batch
\n     reports as\t Scale V  have only been
\n     assessed.\tSo far as the Assignment
\n     Appraisal Reports are concerned, it
\n     is submitted  that,  an  assignment
\n     covers generally a period of two to
\n     three years.    Since  the\t last  6
\n     years assignment appraisal is taken
\n     into  consideration,   the\t  oldest
\n     assignment will  relate to the year
\n     1983  assignment\twould\tnormally
\n     cover  a\tperiod\tcommencing  from
\n     1980-81.  Thus even in respect of a
\n     1.8.82  batch   Scale  V\tofficer,
\n     assignment could  and would cover a
\n     portion of\t his assignment as Scale
\n     IV officer.   Thus\t the  contention
\n     that respondent  nos. 4  or  5  (or
\n     other Scale  V officers  of  1.8.83
\n     and 1.8.84\t batches) have\tgot  any
\n     special  advantages  are  not  well
\n     founded.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The  aforesaid   explanation  clearly  shows  that\t the
\nprocedure of  considering the  assignments in respect of the
\npositions held\tduring the  past six years was in vogue even
\nwhen the  eligibility criteria\twas two\t years which has now
\nbeen revised to four years.  Furthermore even in the case of
\nsome senior  officers the  assignments would cover a portion
\nof their  tenure as  Scale IV officers.\t In considering such
\nreports what  has to  be  seen\tis  whether  the  assignment
\ntargets which  are set\thave been satisfactorily met or not.
\nIt would  not be  very material\t as to\tin which  scale\t the
\nofficer was  while adjudging  this aspect.  It was submitted
\nby Mr.\tShanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for
\nthe respondents\t that  each  assignment\t covers\t two  years.
\nNormally in order to assess the merit of an officer a period
\ncovering three\tassignments was\t considered to be necessary.
\nThis being  so six years annual assignment reports had to be
\nconsidered and we do not find that such considered and we do
\nnot find  that such  consideration  could  have\t caused\t any
\nprejudice to  any officer.   This  contention, therefore, is
\nwithout any substance.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  also contended  that prescribing  of 60 percent
\nmarks for  the interview  as  an  eligibility  criteria\t was
\narbitrary, unfair and unjust.  It was further submitted that
\nthe percentage\tof marks in viva voce examination should not
\nhave been more than 15 percent.\n<\/p>\n
     We do not find any merit in this contention.  There can
\nbe no  rigid or\t hard and fast rule that the interview marks
\ncan only  be 15 percent and no more. The percentage of marks
\nfor  viva  voce\t or  interview\twhich  can  be\tregarded  as
\nunreasonable  will   depend  on\t the  facts  of\t each  case.
\nDecisions of this Court show that no rigid rule, relating to
\npercentage of  marks  for  interview  of  general  universal
\napplication can\t of has\t been laid down.  What the interview
\nor viva voce marks should e may vary from service to service
\nand the\t office or  position or\t the purpose  for which\t the
\ninterview is to be held.  But the interview marks should not
\nbe so  high as\tto give\t an  authority\tunchecked  scope  to
\nmanipulate or  act  in\tan  arbitrary  manner  while  making
\nselection.   Where merit  can be  best judged  by holding an
\ninterview there\t such marks  may be  high but each case will
\nhave to\t be judged on its own facts.  Interview marks may be
\nthe minimal  in such  cases as\trelating to  admission to  a
\ncollege as  held by this Court in Periakaruppan Vs. State of
\nTamil Nadu [(1971) 1 SCC 38] and Ajay Hasia Vs. Khalid Mujid
\nSehrawardi [(1981)  1 SCC  722].   In Lila Dhar Vs. State of
\nRajasthan [(1981)  4 SCC 159] this Court, on the other hand,
\nheld that in some cases relating to recruitment from amongst
\npersons of  matured personality\t holding of an interview may
\nbe only\t way subject  to basis\tand  essential\trequirements
\nbeing satisfied.   The following observations in this regard
\nmade in Lila Dhar’s case are very apposite:.\n<\/p>\n
     “There are of course, many services
\n     to which  recruitment is  made from
\n     younger\t  candidates\t   whose
\n     personalities are\ton the threshold
\n     of development  and who  show signs
\n     of\t  great\t   promise,   and    the
\n     discerning\t may   in  an  interview
\n     test, catch a glimpse of the future
\n     personality.   In the  case of such
\n     services,\twhere\tsound  selection
\n     must combine  academic ability with
\n     personality  promise,  some  weight
\n     has to  be given,\tthough not  much
\n     too  great\t  a   weight,\tto   the
\n     interview test.   There  cannot  be
\n     any rule  of  thumb  regarding  the
\n     precise weight  to be  given.    It
\n     must vary\tfrom service  to service
\n     according to  the\trequirements  of
\n     the    service,\t the\t minimum
\n     qualifications prescribed,\t the age
\n     group from\t which the  selection is
\n     to be  made, the  body to which the
\n     task of  holding the interview test
\n     is proposed  to be\t entrusted and a
\n     host of  other  facts.    It  is  a
\n     matter   for    determination    by
\n     experts.\t  It  is  a  matter  for
\n     research.\t It is not for courts to
\n     pronounce\t  upon\t   it\t  unless
\n     exaggerated weight\t has  ben  given
\n     with  proven   or\tobvious\t oblique
\n     motives.\t The  Kothari  Committee
\n     also suggested  that in view of the
\n     obvious importance\t of the subject,
\n     it may be examined in detail by the
\n     Research Unit  of the  Union Public
\n     Service Commission.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    [emphasis supplied]”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Again in  the State  of U.P.  Vs. Rafiquddin and Ors. [
\n1987 (Supp  401 ] dealing with a case relating to U.P. Civil
\nService (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951 the prescription of 35
\npercent qualifying  minimum marks  for viva  vice  test\t was
\nupheld.\t  In this  connection it  was observed\tthat if\t any
\nminimum marks  either in  the written  test or\tin viva voce
\ntest are  fixed by  the Public\tService Commission  so as to
\ndetermine the  suitability of a candidate the same has to be
\nrespected.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  not necessary to multiply the number of cases in
\nthis regard  except to\tnotice the decision of this Court in
\nMehmood Alam  Tariq and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
\n[(1988) 3  SCC 241  ].\t This case related to recruitment by
\nthe Public Service Commission to certain branches of service
\nunder the State by a scheme of competitive examination.\t The
\nDivision Bench\tof the Rajasthan High Court and declared the
\nrules which  required that a candidate must secure a minimum
\nof 33  percent of  the marks  prescribed for  the viva\tvoce
\nexamination as\tbeing unconstitutional.\t  While allowing the
\nappeal arising\tfrom the  said judgment this Court held that
\nconsidering  the  nature  of  the  services  for  which\t the
\nrecruitment was\t to be\tmade  the  provision  in  the  rules
\nrequiring the candidate to obtain a minimum of 33 percent of
\nmarks in viva voce test could not be regarded as bad in law.\n<\/p>\n
     Applying the  ratio of  the aforesaid decisions in this
\ncase we\t find that  the interview  marks represent  only  25
\npercent of  the aggregate,  i.e., 200 marks.  In order to be
\neligible a  candidate is  required to  obtain 60  percent of
\nthese fifty  marks.  Considering the fact that the selection
\nhas to\tbe made\t for appointment  to the top executive cadre
\nand keeping  in view  the job requirements and the nature of
\nresponsibility the  bank has  raised the  minimum qualifying
\npercentage from\t 50 percent to 60 percent.  At the same time
\nthe total  number of  interview marks have been reduced from
\n100 to\t50.   Under the circumstances it cannot be contended
\nthat exaggerated  weight has  been given  to the marks to be
\nobtained in the interview.\n<\/p>\n
     As\t  already   noticed   the   process   of   selection
\ncontemplates the  assessment of\t the annual reports.  In the
\nrejoinder affidavit  filed by  one Sh.\tUmed Singh, the then
\nPresident of  the petitioner Federation, it was contended as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
     “In fact in the impugned promotions
\n     only one person Shri V.K. Mehrotra,
\n     General Manager  has allotted marks
\n     on\t  the\t individual    promotion
\n     appraisal\tforms.\t   A   list   of
\n     candidates\t was  prepared\tand  the
\n     marks  allotted  by  Shri\tMehrotra
\n     were copied  and then  the list was
\n     got  signed  by  the  three  Deputy
\n     Managing Directors.   This\t can  be
\n     ascertained   from\t   the\t records
\n     itself.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In view  of the  aforesaid averment  this Court  in its
\norder dated  27th July,\t 1990 noted  that this\twas  a\tvery
\nserious allegation  and as  the Court  did not find from the
\naffidavit the  basis on\t which this  allegation was made, it
\ndirected  Sh.  Umed  Singh  “to\t verify\t on  affidavit\tthis
\nallegation and to state specifically whether the allegations
\nhave been  made on his personal knowledge or on the basis of
\ninformation believed  to be true and the pre use (sic)source
\nof the\tinformation from  whom the  information was  derived
\nwill have  to be  specifically stated  as otherwise credence
\nwhatever can be given to an allegation of this type.  If the
\nallegation is  to be found false that also will have its own
\nconsequences.”\t By this  order the Court also required that
\nthe file  containing  the  photo  copies  of  the  appraisal
\nrecords of  all the  persons promoted  should be tendered in
\nthe Registry  and the  same was\t required to  be kept by the
\nRegistrar in a sealed cover.\n<\/p>\n
     Pursuant to  the aforesaid\t order a  further  affidavit
\ndated 10th  August, 1990 was filed in this Court by Sh. Umea
\nSingh.\t In paragraph 2 of this affidavit he stated that the
\naverments made\tby him in his rejoinder affidavit were based
\non the information derived by him from Sh. V.K. Mehrotra and
\none Sh.\t R.P. Rastogi,\tthe  then  Deputy  General  Manager,
\nCentral Office, Bombay.\t Elaborating this it was stated that
\nthe deponent had met Sh. V. Mehrotra in the room of the P.A.
\nto the\tGeneral Manager (Planning), State Bank of India, New
\nDelhi on  or around 28th April, 1989.  It is at that time Sh
\nV.K. Mehrotra  is alleged  to have  informed Sh.  Umed Singh
\nthat he\t had been called by the Central Office in connection
\nwith the awarding of marks for promotion appraisals.  It was
\nfurther stated\tin this affidavit of Sh. Umed Singh that Sh.
\nR.P. Rastogi  had told\thim that  marks\t on  the  individual
\npromotion appraisal  forms were awarded by Sh. V.K. Mehrotra
\nand the\t statement of marks in respect of various candidates
\nwas signed  by the  Screening Committee\t comprising  of\t the
\nthree Deputy Managing Directors.\n<\/p>\n
     In response  to the  aforesaid additional\taffidavit of
\nSh. Umed  Singh a counter affidavit dated 12th October, 1990
\nof Sh.\tM.N. Sheorey,  Chief General  Manager (Personnel) of
\nthe respondent\tbank was  filed.    In\tthis  affidavit\t Sh.
\nSheorey stated\tthat Sh. Umed Singh was incorrect in stating
\nthat Sh.  V.K. Mehrotra\t had allotted  marks  on  individual
\nappraisal  forms.     Explaining  the  procedure  which\t was
\nactually followed Sh. Sheorey, in paragraphs 4 and 5 of this
\naffidavit observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     “That in March 1989 an office order
\n     to the  following effect  had  been
\n     issued by the Chairman of the State
\n     Bank of  India which  is being  set
\n     out hereunder:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “As per  the extant  procedure, the
\n     recommendations received  from  the
\n     Circles\tand    Central\t  Office
\n     departments, for  promotion to  Top
\n     Executive Grade  Scales VI\t and VII
\n     are    precessed\t by    Personnel
\n     Department, as  per the  laid  down
\n     norms.   Thereafter,  the\tofficers
\n     who fulfil the norms are called for
\n     interview.\t  From the current year,
\n     it is  proposed to\t have  a  second
\n     stage  screening\tof   all   these
\n     reports after they are processed by
\n     the Personnel Department.\tThe list
\n     of the  officials to be interviewed
\n     will be  finalised thereafter.  The
\n     committee comprising Shri B. Gupta,
\n     Deputy  Managing\tDirector  (OSD),
\n     Shri  M.C.\t  Sharma,  Dy.\tManaging
\n     Director\t(Agriculture   &   Rural
\n     Banking), and  Shri B.K.  Mazmudar,
\n     Deputy Managing Director (Personnel
\n     & Systems)\t will be  the members of
\n     the  Screening   Committee.     The
\n     necessary secretarial  support will
\n     be provided  by the  Chief\t General
\n     Manager (Personnel & HRD).”
\n     Each and  every promotion appraisal
\n     from   was\t  scrutinised\tby   the
\n     Screening Committee consisting of 3
\n     Deputy Managing  Directors\t and  it
\n     was the  Screening Committee  which
\n     used to finally determine the marks
\n     to be  given to  different officers
\n     in\t respect   of\teach   promotion
\n     appraisal form.   What the deponent
\n     as Chief General Manager (Personnel
\n     and HRD),\tsince redesignated    as
\n     Chief General  Manager (Personnel),
\n     did was  to provided  assistance to
\n     the deliberations\tof the Screening
\n     Committee.\t The final marksheet was
\n     accordingly signed\t by  all  the  3
\n     members of the Screening Committee.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It is  submitted that,  I, as Chief
\n     General Manager, Personnel and HRD,
\n     in view  of about\t500  candidates’
\n     appraisal forms being involved, had
\n     taken\t   assistance\t      in
\n     arranging\/processing   the\t  papers
\n     from Shri\tR.P. Rastogi who was the
\n     Dy.  General   Manager   (Presently
\n     known as  Dy. General  Manager)  of
\n     Personnel\t Administration\t   Dept.
\n     before  putting   them  up\t to  the
\n     Screening Committee.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Along with  this an, affidavit of Sh. V.K. Mehrotra was also
\nfiled where, while referring to the earlier statement of Sh.
\nUmed Singh  alleging that  Sh. V.K.  Mehrotra  had  allotted
\nmarks on  the individual  promotion appraisal  forms, it was
\ncategorically stated that the said statement was  absolutely
\nfalse.\t Sh. R.P.  Rastogi, another officer mentioned in the
\naffidavit of  Sh. Umed Singh, has also filed an affidavit in
\nthis connection in which he has stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     “Mr. Umed\tSingh never  asked me at
\n     any time  any question  relating to
\n     the  processing  of  the  promotion
\n     papers nor\t told me  anything as to
\n     what  Mehrotra  told  him.\t   These
\n     allegations are  pure  figments  of
\n     deponent’s\t  imagination.\t    With
\n     regard to further allegation that I
\n     told the  deponent that while marks
\n     on the  individual promotion  forms
\n     were awarded  by Shri V.K. Mehrotra
\n     these were\t copied\t in  a\tseparate
\n     paper and\tsigned by  three  Deputy
\n     Managing  Directors,   firstly,   I
\n     never told\t anything  to  Mr.  Umed
\n     Singh and\tsecondly the second fact
\n     itself is not true.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The  photo\t  copies  of  the  documents  including\t the
\nappraisal forms\t which have  been filed\t in Court  have also
\nbeen examined by us.  No document in these two volumes which
\nhave  been  filed  has\tbeen  shown  to\t us  to\t be  in\t the
\nhandwriting of\tSh. V.K.  Mehrotra.    In  other  words\t the
\ndocuments so  filed do\tnot show  that Sh. V.K. Mehrotra had
\nany role,  as alleged,\tto play\t in awarding  marks  on\t the
\nindividual appraisal  forms.\tFurthermore  the  affidavits
\nfiled by  Mr. Sheorey,\tSh. Mehrotra and Sh. Rastogi clearly
\nbelie  the  allegations\t made  by  Sh.\tUmed  Singh  in\t his
\nrejoinder affidavit.   There  is no  reason as\tto  why\t the
\naffidavits filed by these senior officers of the bank should
\nbe disbelieved.\t  This\tis more\t so when  we find  that\t the
\nallegation with\t regard to  Sh. Mehrotra  has been made at a
\nlate stage.   The  writ petition  was filed in this Court on
\n21st April, 1989.  The alleged conversation between Sh. Umed
\nSingh and Sh. V.K. Mehrotra is stated to have taken place on
\nor about 28th April, 1989.  It is not till the filing of the
\nrejoinder affidavit on 23rd October, 1989 that an allegation
\nregarding alleged  conversation with  Sh. V.K.\tMehrotra was
\nmade in this Court.  If such a conversation, as alleged, had
\ntaken place  one would\thave  expected\tthe  petitioners  to
\napproach the  Court at\tthe earliest  either with  a view to
\namend the  writ petition  or to file an additional affidavit
\nmaking the allegations raised in the rejoinder affidavit and
\nthereby giving an opportunity to the respondents to file the
\nreply.\t This conduct  of Sh. Umea Singh shows that the bald
\nallegation regarding Sh. V.K. Mehrotra are absolutely false.
\nWhile on  this subject it will be pertinent to note that the
\nrespondents  in\t  their\t counter   affidavit  had  taken  an
\nobjection to  the effect  that the  writ petition  should be
\ndismissed because  the petitioners  had\t suppressed  certain
\nmaterial facts\tfrom this  Court and had also tried to abuse
\nthe process  of the  Court, attention  of the  Bench of this
\nCourt was  drawn to  the affidavits  of Sh. Umed Singh which
\nhad been filed in this case.  In the order dated 16th April,
\n1990, the Bench went into the question as to whether some of
\nthe statements\tmade in\t the writ petition as well as in the
\naffidavit are  correct or  not.\t  It also  took note  of  an
\naffidavit filed\t by Sh. Umed Singh in which he had purported
\nto “tender  an unqualified  apology” for some mis-statements
\nmade in\t an earlier affidavit.\tUltimately the Bench came to
\nthe conclusion\tthat “apart  from mis-statements  made in an
\nearlier affidavit  filed before\t this Court,  the petitioner
\nFederation has clearly resorted to tactics which can only be
\ndescribed as  abuse of the process of the Court.”  The Bench
\nalso further expressed its anguish in the following words:\n<\/p>\n
     ”\t  We have  set out  the facts in
\n     this case at some length and passed
\n     a detailed\t order\tbecause\t we  are
\n     deeply grieved  to come across such
\n     conduct   on   the\t  part\t of   an
\n     association,   which    claims   to
\n     represent high placed officers of a
\n     premier bank  of this country.  One
\n     expects  such   officers  to  fight
\n     their battles  fairly and\tsquarely
\n     and not  to stoop low to gain, what
\n     can only be, temporary victories by
\n     keeping away  material  facts  from
\n     the Court.\t  It is common knowledge
\n     that, of late, statements are being
\n     made in  petitions\t and  affidavits
\n     recklessly\t  and\twithout\t  proper
\n     verification  not\t to   speak   of
\n     dishonest\t    and\t      deliberate
\n     misstatements.  We, therefore, take
\n     this  opportunity\t to  record  our
\n     strong and\t emphatic disapproval of
\n     the conduct  of the  petitioners in
\n     this case\tand hope  that this will
\n     be\t a   lesson   to   the\t present
\n     petitioner\t as  well  as  to  other
\n     litigants\tand   that  atleast   in
\n     future   people   will   act   more
\n     truthfully and with a greater sense
\n     of responsibility.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The petition  was not  dismissed on account of misstatements
\nand suppression\t of material facts because of the concession
\nmade by the counsel for the bank that he was appearing for a
\npublic sector  undertaking and\twas prepared  to contest the
\npetition on  merits and\t that the  preliminary objection was
\nprimarily intended  to bring  to the notice of the court the
\nconduct of the petitioners in this regard.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  indeed unfortunate\tthat despite  the  aforesaid
\nobservations made  by the  Bench in  its  order\t dated\t16th
\nApril, 1990,  Sh. Umed\tSingh has  not batted an eye lid and
\nhas, once again made false statements in his affidavit dated
\n10th August,  1990.   Normally we  would  have\tordered\t the
\nprosecution of\tSh. Umed Singh for having committed perjury.
\nWe are, however, informed that he is no longer the President
\nof the\tFederation and considering that prosecution may take
\nfurther time  it will  not be  practical  to  initiate\tsuch
\nproceedings in this connection at this stage.\n<\/p>\n
     For  the\taforesaid  reasons  this  writ\tpetition  is
\ndismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 20,000\/- of
\nwhich  Rs.   10,000\/-  will   be  paid\tby  Sh.\t Umed  Singh
\npersonally.\n<\/p>\n
     Writ Petition No. 1260 of 1989
\n     For the reasons stated in the judgment in writ petition
\nno. 507 of 1939, this writ petition is also dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India All India State Bankofficers … vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 September, 1996 Author: K B.N. Bench: Kirpal B.N. (J) PETITIONER: ALL INDIA STATE BANKOFFICERS FEDERATION AND ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/09\/1996 BENCH: KIRPAL B.N. (J) BENCH: KIRPAL B.N. (J) VERMA, JAGDISH […]<\/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-169678","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAll India State Bankofficers ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 September, 1996 - 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-bankofficers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-13-september-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"All India State Bankofficers ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-state-bankofficers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-13-september-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-09-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-01T13:50:58+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=\"42 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-bankofficers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-13-september-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-state-bankofficers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-13-september-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"All India State Bankofficers … vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 September, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-09-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-01T13:50:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-state-bankofficers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-13-september-1996\"},\"wordCount\":8248,\"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-bankofficers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-13-september-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-state-bankofficers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-13-september-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-state-bankofficers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-13-september-1996\",\"name\":\"All India State Bankofficers ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-09-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-01T13:50:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-state-bankofficers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-13-september-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-state-bankofficers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-13-september-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-state-bankofficers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-13-september-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"All India State Bankofficers … vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 September, 1996\"}]},{\"@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 Bankofficers ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 September, 1996 - 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-bankofficers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-13-september-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"All India State Bankofficers ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-state-bankofficers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-13-september-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-09-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-01T13:50:58+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":"42 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-state-bankofficers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-13-september-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-state-bankofficers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-13-september-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"All India State Bankofficers … vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 September, 1996","datePublished":"1996-09-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-01T13:50:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-state-bankofficers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-13-september-1996"},"wordCount":8248,"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-bankofficers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-13-september-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-state-bankofficers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-13-september-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-state-bankofficers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-13-september-1996","name":"All India State Bankofficers ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-09-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-01T13:50:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-state-bankofficers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-13-september-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-state-bankofficers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-13-september-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-state-bankofficers-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-13-september-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"All India State Bankofficers … vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 September, 1996"}]},{"@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\/169678","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=169678"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169678\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=169678"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=169678"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=169678"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}