CHAIRMAN AND M.D. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK & ORS. versus TRIBHUWAN NATH SRIVASTAVA

Citation: [2011] 2 S.C.R. 556 · Decided: 04-02-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011) 2 S.C.R. 556 
A CHAIRMAN AND M.D. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK & ORS. 
B 
V. 
TRIBHUWAN NATH SRIVASTAVA 
(Civil Appeal No. 1186 of 2005) 
FEBRUARY 4, 2011 
[AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ~] 
Service law: Retirement - Voluntary retirement scheme 
- JOB Officers and Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 
C 2000 - Object and purpose of - Application for voluntary 
retirement - Acceptance and rejection of - Administrative 
decision - Judicial review - Scope of - Held: The object of 
the scheme in question was to adopt measures to have 
optimum human resources at various levels in keeping with 
· D the business strategies, skill profile to achieve balanced age 
and requirement of the bank - In the process of shedding 
surplus manpower, no organization would like to lose its best 
people - It is a matter of personnel management and the 
competent authority is expected to factor in such 
E considerations while taking a decision on individual 
applications - Such considerations would certainly not be a 
ground for the court to interfere with the decision of the 
competent authority - However, the discretion vested in the 
competent authority is not absolute in the sense of being 
F completely uncontrolled, whimsical or capricious - In the 
instant case, the bank had properly appraised the 
respondent's request for voluntary retirement under the 
sch~me and its decision not to accept the request was within 
the legitimate exercise of discretion that did not warrant any 
G interference by the High Court. 
H 
On December 15, 2000, the respondent made an 
application seeking voluntary retirement from the service 
of the appellant-bank under the 108 Officers and 
556 
CHAIRMAN AND M.D. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK v. 557 
TRIBHUWAN NATH SRIVASTAVA 
Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000. At that A 
time, the respondent was working as Chief Manager {in 
Scale IV). He was a permanent employee with more than 
15 years of service and was over 40 years of age and was 
eligible for making the· application. The bank intimated 
him that his application was not accepted considering the 
8 
business/organizational requirements and administrative 
exigencies of the bank.The respondent filed a writ 
petition before the High Court. The High Court allowed 
the writ petition on the ground that the bank had acted 
arbitrarily in his case and had rejected his application 
C 
without according good reasons. The High Court 
- directed the bank to reconsider the matter and take a 
fresh decision. The Bank constituted a committee to 
reconsider his requ"est for voluntary retirement as 
directed by the High Court .. The Com.mittee reconsidered 
·· 
the matter taking into account the service record of the 
D 
respondent. The Committee did not to accept the 
voluntary retirement application under the scheme 
keeping in view his exemplary track record, the 
specialized skill expertise, potential, training imparted, 
organizational 
requirement 
and 
administrative 
E 
exigencies. The decision of the Committee was 
communicated to the respondent who challenged it_ 
before the High Court in writ petition. The High Court 
allowed the writ petition holding that the bank and its 
officers had acted in a highly arbitrary, discriminatory and 
F 
malafide manner and had not shown any respect to the 
High Court by totally flouting its earlier judgment. It 
further held that despite the clear observation in its 
earlier judgment, the ba_nk authorities had taken the stand 
that it was the absolute discretion of the competent G 
authority either to accept or reject 'the application. The 
instant appeal was .filed challenging the order of the High 
Court. 
H 
558 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
Held: 1.1. The reasonableness of a decision or an 
action can only be judged in the totality of the facts and 
circumstances and having regard to the object and 
8 purpose sought to be achieved. If the object is to select 
someone for public employment or for promotion to a 
higher post, .the o~ly rea~onable thing to do would be to 
select the most suitable and meritorious among the 
candidates. The selection of a person of inferior merit or 
someone who is not even eligible· would be wholJy 
C unreasonable if the object is to choose the best as it 
should be in case of selection for public employment or 
promotion to a higher post. But in case an organisation 
undertakes manpower planning with a view to downsize 
the personnel and cut d

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.