{"id":263390,"date":"2002-08-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-08-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-and-subsidiary-vs-general-manager-operations-on-8-august-2002"},"modified":"2015-09-13T18:57:19","modified_gmt":"2015-09-13T13:27:19","slug":"state-bank-of-india-and-subsidiary-vs-general-manager-operations-on-8-august-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-and-subsidiary-vs-general-manager-operations-on-8-august-2002","title":{"rendered":"State Bank Of India And Subsidiary &#8230; vs General Manager (Operations), &#8230; on 8 August, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Bombay High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Bank Of India And Subsidiary &#8230; vs General Manager (Operations), &#8230; on 8 August, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 2003 (4) BomCR 718, (2003) 1 BOMLR 144, (2003) ILLJ 1052 Bom, 2003 (1) MhLj 28<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Marlapalle<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: B Marlapalle, D Karnik<\/div>\n<p id=\"p_1\">JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>Marlapalle, J.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\"> 1. The Petitioner   No.      1  is  a  union  and<br \/>\nPetitioner No.  2 is an employee of the Respondent No.<br \/>\n1 Bank [State Bank of India] and at the relevant  time<br \/>\nwas working  under the Respondent No.3.  The grievance<br \/>\nraised in this petition pertains to the appointment of<br \/>\nTrainee Officers by way of promotion.  On  2nd  March,<br \/>\n1991 the  Bank  issued  circular  No.  PER\/KCL\/of 1991<br \/>\ninviting applications for preparation of the  list  of<br \/>\neligible employees for appointment as Trainee Officers<br \/>\nwith effect  from 1st August, 1991.  The requirements,<br \/>\nlike  minimum  service,   minimum   age,   educational<br \/>\nqualifications   etc.,   were  set  out  in  the  said<br \/>\ncircular.  The Petitioner No.  2 responded and he went<br \/>\nthrough the process of selection.  He appeared for the<br \/>\nwritten test  held  on  12th  May,  1991  and  he  was<br \/>\ndeclared successful  in  the  same.  He was called for<br \/>\nviva-voce on 15th July, 1991 and he attended the  same<br \/>\nbefore the  interview  committee.    However, when the<br \/>\nnames of successful candidates were announced  he  did<br \/>\nnot  find  his  name  in the list for Trainee Officers<br \/>\nand, therefore, he approached this  Court  challenging<br \/>\nthe  validity  of  the selection process consequent to<br \/>\nthe circular dated 2nd  March,  1991  and  prayed  for<br \/>\nquashing  the  selection  and  directions  to  appoint<br \/>\nPetitioner No.  2 as Trainee Officer for 1992 batch.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\"> 2. The  main  thrust  of  the challenge is on the<br \/>\nground that the written test held was  for  150  marks<br \/>\nand  the  interview  assessment was for 100 marks i.e.<br \/>\n40% of  the  total  marks  i.e.    written  test  plus<br \/>\ninterview.   The  objection  of the petitioner is that<br \/>\nfixing of 40% marks for oral  interview  is  excessive<br \/>\nand  contrary  to  the law laid down by the Apex Court<br \/>\nfrom time to time.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\"> 3. The  Respondent  bank  filed  its  reply   and<br \/>\nopposed the  petition.    It  has  emphasised that the<br \/>\nselection process was  undertaken  as  per  rules  and<br \/>\nthere  was  nothing  arbitrary  or illegal in the said<br \/>\nselection process.  The Petitioner having gone through<br \/>\nthe selection procedure could not have turned back  to<br \/>\nchallenge the   very  same  procedure.    It  is  also<br \/>\ncontended that the Petitioner was  aware,  right  from<br \/>\nthe  time  he  had responded to the circular dated 2nd<br \/>\nMarch, 1991, regarding the  marks  fixed  for  written<br \/>\ntest as well as for the interview and he did not raise<br \/>\nany  protest  either  orally  or in writing before the<br \/>\npetition  was  filed  or  before  he   underwent   the<br \/>\nselection process.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\"> 4. As  directed by us, the Bank has placed before<br \/>\nus the policy for  promotion  to  JMGS-I  and  Trainee<br \/>\nOfficers, that was existing prior to October, 1992 and<br \/>\nmodified thereafter.    The guidelines for appointment<br \/>\nof Trainee Officers,  which  were  applicable  to  the<br \/>\nsubject  selection,  indicate  that in addition to the<br \/>\nqualifications and  minimum  service  requirement  the<br \/>\nselection  procedure  consisted  of  written  test and<br \/>\ninterview and also clarified that oral interview  will<br \/>\nbe  only  for those who qualified in the written test.<br \/>\nThe  distribution  of  marks  for  written  test   and<br \/>\ninterview was  (a)  written  test  :    150 marks, (b)<br \/>\ninterview :  100 marks.  From  October,  1992  onwards<br \/>\nthis  was  sought  to be changed to (a) written test :<br \/>\n160 and (b) interview :  40.  It  is  clear  that  the<br \/>\nexisting  selection  procedure  consisted of 250 marks<br \/>\nwhereas the revised  procedure  (from  October,  1992)<br \/>\nconsisted of 200 marks.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\"> 5. In  the  case  of  &#8220;Lila  Dhar  V\/s  State  of<br \/>\nRajasthan and others&#8221;  it was<br \/>\nclarified that the earlier decision  in  the  case  of<br \/>\n&#8220;Ajay  Hasia V\/s Khalid Mujib Sehravardi&#8221;  and &#8220;Pariakaruppan V\/s State of Tamil Nadu&#8221;   were the cases pertaining to admission<br \/>\nto colleges and the provisions for marks for interview<br \/>\nand written test could not be the same  for  admission<br \/>\nto colleges  and  entry  into  public services.  While<br \/>\ndealing with  the  ambit  of  written  test  and  oral<br \/>\ninterview   for   public   services,  the  Apex  Court<br \/>\nobserved:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">  &#8220;6&#8230;.  &#8230;  &#8230;  On the other  hand,<br \/>\nin the case of services to which recruitment<br \/>\nhas  necessarily  to be made from persons of<br \/>\nmature personality, interview  test  may  be<br \/>\nthe only way, subject to basic and essential<br \/>\nacademic and professional requirements being<br \/>\nsatisfied.   To  subject  such  persons to a<br \/>\nwritten examination may yield unfruitful and<br \/>\nnegative results, apart from  its  being  an<br \/>\nact of cruelty to those persons.  There are,<br \/>\nof    course,   many   services   to   which<br \/>\nrecruitment is made from younger  candidates<br \/>\nwhose  personalities are on the threshold of<br \/>\ndevelopment and  who  show  signs  of  great<br \/>\npromise,   and  the  discerning  may  in  an<br \/>\ninterview  test,  catch  a  glimpse  of  the<br \/>\nfuture personality.    In  the  case of such<br \/>\nservices, where sound selection must combine<br \/>\nacademic ability with  personality  promise,<br \/>\nsome weight has to be given, though not much<br \/>\ntoo  great  weight,  to  the interview test.<br \/>\nThere cannot be any rule of thumb  regarding<br \/>\nthe precise  weight  to  be  given.  It must<br \/>\nvary from service to  service  according  to<br \/>\nthe requirements of the service, the minimum<br \/>\nqualifications  prescribed,  the  age  group<br \/>\nfrom which the selection is to be made,  the<br \/>\nbody  to  which  the  task  of  holding  the<br \/>\ninterview test is proposed to  be  entrusted<br \/>\nand a host of other factors.  It is a matter<br \/>\nfor determination  by  experts.    It  is  a<br \/>\nmatter for research.  It is not  for  Courts<br \/>\nto  pronounce  upon  it  unless  exaggerated<br \/>\nweight has been given with proven or obvious<br \/>\noblique motives.  &#8230;&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\"> Subsequently,  a  four  Judge Bench of the Apex<br \/>\nCourt in the case of &#8221; Ashok  Kumar  Yadav  and  others<br \/>\netc.  etc.  V\/s State of Haryana and others etc.  etc.&#8221;<br \/>\n  of  its  judgment<br \/>\nreiterated the observations made in  Lila  Dhars  case<br \/>\n(supra).\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\"> In the case of &#8220;C.P. Kalra V\/s Air India Through<br \/>\nits  Managing  Director, Bombay and others&#8221; [1994 Supp.<br \/>\n(1) S.C.C.  454] the Apex  Court  was  dealing  with  a<br \/>\nsimilar situation like the one we have at hand.  Out of<br \/>\ntotal  100  marks  60  marks  were  reserved for annual<br \/>\nperformance appraisal reports and 40 marks for personal<br \/>\ninterview as per Rule 2.6.  It was contended before the<br \/>\nCourt that fixing  of  40%  marks  for  oral  interview<br \/>\nvitiated   the  selection  process  and  the  selection<br \/>\nprocess was by internal promotions.    The  contentions<br \/>\nwere overruled.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\"> 6. It   is   not   disputed  that  the  Petitioner<br \/>\nunderwent  the  selection  process   and   decided   to<br \/>\nchallenge  the  same when he realised that his name was<br \/>\nnot found in the selection list displayed by  the  Bank<br \/>\nfor the   post   of   Trainee  Officer.    It  is  well<br \/>\nestablished by now that after having gone  through  the<br \/>\nselection  process, without any protest, the candidate,<br \/>\nwho did not find his place in the selection  list,  has<br \/>\nno right to challenge the validity of selection process<br \/>\nand  this  is  what exactly the Petitioner sought to do<br \/>\nand, therefore, his challenge has to be repelled.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\"> 7. We have examined the record and noticed that by<br \/>\nthe impugned selection process a  number  of  employees<br \/>\nwere  promoted  and  appointed  to  the post of Trainee<br \/>\nOfficers but were not impleaded as a party  respondent.<br \/>\nThe  selection  was  made about a decade ago and though<br \/>\nthe petition was pending for more than eleven years  no<br \/>\nsteps  were  taken  to implead any of such officers who<br \/>\nwere likely to be affected though the Petitioner No.  1<br \/>\nis  the  union  claiming  to  represent  such officers.<br \/>\nThus, the petition fails on all counts.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\"> 8.In the result, the writ petition is  dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\"> 9. Rule discharged with no orders as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Bombay High Court State Bank Of India And Subsidiary &#8230; vs General Manager (Operations), &#8230; on 8 August, 2002 Equivalent citations: 2003 (4) BomCR 718, (2003) 1 BOMLR 144, (2003) ILLJ 1052 Bom, 2003 (1) MhLj 28 Author: Marlapalle Bench: B Marlapalle, D Karnik JUDGMENT Marlapalle, J. 1. The Petitioner No. 1 is a union [&hellip;]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-263390","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State Bank Of India And Subsidiary ... vs General Manager (Operations), ... on 8 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/state-bank-of-india-and-subsidiary-vs-general-manager-operations-on-8-august-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Bank Of India And Subsidiary ... vs General Manager (Operations), ... on 8 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-and-subsidiary-vs-general-manager-operations-on-8-august-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-13T13:27:19+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-india-and-subsidiary-vs-general-manager-operations-on-8-august-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-india-and-subsidiary-vs-general-manager-operations-on-8-august-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Bank Of India And Subsidiary &#8230; vs General Manager (Operations), &#8230; on 8 August, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-13T13:27:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-india-and-subsidiary-vs-general-manager-operations-on-8-august-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1217,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-india-and-subsidiary-vs-general-manager-operations-on-8-august-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-india-and-subsidiary-vs-general-manager-operations-on-8-august-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-india-and-subsidiary-vs-general-manager-operations-on-8-august-2002\",\"name\":\"State Bank Of India And Subsidiary ... vs General Manager (Operations), ... on 8 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-13T13:27:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-india-and-subsidiary-vs-general-manager-operations-on-8-august-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-india-and-subsidiary-vs-general-manager-operations-on-8-august-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-india-and-subsidiary-vs-general-manager-operations-on-8-august-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Bank Of India And Subsidiary &#8230; vs General Manager (Operations), &#8230; on 8 August, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"State Bank Of India And Subsidiary ... vs General Manager (Operations), ... on 8 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/state-bank-of-india-and-subsidiary-vs-general-manager-operations-on-8-august-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Bank Of India And Subsidiary ... vs General Manager (Operations), ... on 8 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-and-subsidiary-vs-general-manager-operations-on-8-august-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-13T13:27:19+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-and-subsidiary-vs-general-manager-operations-on-8-august-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-and-subsidiary-vs-general-manager-operations-on-8-august-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Bank Of India And Subsidiary &#8230; vs General Manager (Operations), &#8230; on 8 August, 2002","datePublished":"2002-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-13T13:27:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-and-subsidiary-vs-general-manager-operations-on-8-august-2002"},"wordCount":1217,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-and-subsidiary-vs-general-manager-operations-on-8-august-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-and-subsidiary-vs-general-manager-operations-on-8-august-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-and-subsidiary-vs-general-manager-operations-on-8-august-2002","name":"State Bank Of India And Subsidiary ... vs General Manager (Operations), ... on 8 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-13T13:27:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-and-subsidiary-vs-general-manager-operations-on-8-august-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-and-subsidiary-vs-general-manager-operations-on-8-august-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-and-subsidiary-vs-general-manager-operations-on-8-august-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Bank Of India And Subsidiary &#8230; vs General Manager (Operations), &#8230; on 8 August, 2002"}]},{"@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\/263390","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=263390"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/263390\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=263390"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=263390"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=263390"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}