LexK.M. MISHRA versus CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 534 ... ~- ~ A K.M. MISHRA l- II. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5683 of 2008) B SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 -\ . [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] Service Law - Promotion - To Senior Management Grade Scale IV - Of Bank officer in preference to the other, on c the basis of better Performance Rating for two out of three years - Promotion challenged on the ground that the promoted of- ficer did not fulfil education qualification and that performance appraisal of the officer challenging the promotion, was in breach of the guidelines - Held: the promotion was given D rightly - Challenge to educational qualification is a non-issue as the same was relevant at the stage of entry level and not t"' for promotion in question - In the facts of the case, challenge regarding performance appraisal is not sustainable. Appellant as well as respondent No.5 were consid- E ered for promotion from Middle Management Grade Scale Ill to Senior Management Grade Scale IV. Respondent No. 5 was promoted in preference to the appellant as Perfor- mance Appraisal Ratings of the appellant for two years (years 1995-96 and 1996-97) out of the three relevant years F were lower than respondent No. 5. Appellant challenged the order on the grounds interalia that respondent No. 5 did not fulfill the require- ment of educational qualifications; and that performance appraisal of the appellant for the two years i.e. 1995-96 G and 1996-97, was in breach of the guidelines provided under the Performance Appraisal System of Officers. High Court dismissed the writ petition. Hence the present ap- peal. r- , H 534 K.M. MISHRA v. CENTRAL BANK OF 535 ~-., lr.JDIA & ORS. Dismissing the appeal, the Court A HELD: 1. The matter of educational qualification of respondent No.5 is a non-issue insofar as hi$ promotion to Senior Management Grade (SMG) Scale IV is con- ~· } cerned. The educational qualifications referred to by the B appellant pertain to the entry level post of Hindi Officer Scale I. The appellant and the respondent were promoted as Hindi Officer Class I. Later on both of them were pro- moted to scales II and Ill and it was after about 20 years of entry into service that both of them came up for consid- eration for promotion to SMG Scale IV. Even while the c selection process was going on, the appellant did not raise this objection before the Bank management. The objection was taken for the first time before the High Court and at that stage too it was not made clear that the edu- cational qualifications were not relevant for the· promo- D .>, tion in question but that pertained only to the entry level post. At this stage, therefore, the Court will not go into the question of the educational qualification of respondent No.5, more so since it is not at all conclusive or clear that respondent No.5 did not have English as one of the elec- E tive subjects at the Graduation level. [Para 7] [539-D-G] 2. There is no substance or merit in the appellant's objections regarding his Performance Appraisal Ratings for the three years in question. It is true that in the year 1996 the appellant's Reporting Officer was for less than F six months but the appellant himself was responsible for the same to a great extent as he did not submit his self appraisal in time. Though in the year 1996 the appellant's Reporting Officer was for less than six months, by the time the appraisal rating for the year 1997 was written the G appellant had already worked under him for more than six months. The Performance Appraisal Rating of the ap- -.,- pellant given for the year 1996-97 was thus beyond any objection. Even if the Performance Appraisal Rating for the year 1995-96 is excluded for both the candidates, the H 536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R A position would still remain the same as the appellant would have only a 'Good' remark as against the 'Very Good' remark for respondent No.5 for the year 1996-97. [Paras 11, 12 and 13] [542-A-F] 3. It is not correct to contend that the rating of 'Very B Good' in the year 1995 and of 'Good' for the year 1996-97 being a climb down, (as in the preceding years he had 'Excellent' ratings) it was incumbent upon the authorities to intimate the appellant about his ratings for the two years in question; and that in absence of such intimation, the C ratings for those two years should not have been taken into account and instead the r
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.