LexSTATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR. versus V. PARTHASARATHY ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR. v. V. PARTHASARATHY ETC. NOVEMBER 9, 1992 B [KULDIP SINGH AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.] Civil Services : State Bank of India-Promotion to the post of Head Clerk-Circular C No. 42-Clause l(df-Three optionS'-Outside the city·ivithin city and within the same office-Debarment on refusal of third and final offer-Local Head Office and five other offices to be considered as one Unit-Final offer made in one such office-Whether valid and debars the optees permanently on refusal to accept. ' D The appellant-Bank issued Circular No. 42 containing an under- standing reached with the Staff-union laying down the policy for promo- tion of clerks to the post of Head Clerks. As per clause 1 ( d) of the Circular the employees who decline to accept Head Clerk's post at a branch office outside the city in which they work, will have a further option when a E vacancy arises at any one or the Bank's offices within that city. However, this was subject to the condition that at the material time there was no other senior employee who had similarly declined the post outside bis branch office, in which case the senior-most would have the first choice. It was further provided that if an employee declines to accept the post or Head Clerk at an office within the same city, his case would be considered F only when a vacancy arises at his office. This was also subject to the condition that there was no senior employee similarly situated at the material time. If the third and final offer is declined, there would be a permanent debarment of promotion. G Since there were six offices at the Madras Local Head Office, a common seniority was maintained and all the six offices were considered as one office, viz. local Head Office of which the other live offices were only parts. The Respondents declined their first, second and final offers, H though indisputably the final offer was made to them for being posted in 362 STATE BANK OF INDIA v. V. PARTHASARATHY 363 an office forming part of the local Head Office. Both the Respondents A moved the High Court by way of Writ Petitions and the High Court took the view that the final offer made was not in the same office and so they were entitled to be posted as Head Clerks in the same office. Being aggrieved by the said two decisions of the High Court, the appellant-Bank preferred the present appeals. B On the question of interpretation of clause l(d) of the circular in question : Allowing the appeals, this Court, c HELD: 1. The High Court's interpretation ofcl. l(d) of the Circular that the third offer made was not in the office where the Respondents were working .and therefore their refusal to accept the post did not exhaust the third option and they were entitled to be posted as Head Clerks in the Office where they were working is incorrect in view of the fact that the local D Head Office was split into six different offices which together constituted one unit. By refusing to accept the third and final offer, the Respondents had clearly exhausted all the three options and bad become permanently debarred from seeking promotion to the post of Head Clerk. [366-E-GJ 2. This Court does not intend to interfere with the appointment of E the respondents to the post of Head Clerk in the Regional Office in the facts and circumstances of these matters which show that in one case a fortuitous appointment had arisen due to death of an employee within almost a month of the Respondent's refusal to accept the offer, and in the other case, the Respondent has already been accommodated in the post of F Head Clerk in the Regional Office itself. However, this would not be treated as a precedent and this would not affect the interpretation of clause l(d) of the Circular, placed by this Court. (366-H; 367-A] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nus. 4799- 4800 of 1992. From the Judgments dated 4.3.1992 and 8.4.1992 in Madras High Court in W.P. No. 246/92 and W.A. No. 349 of 1992. G. Ramaswamy Attorney Genera~ K. Sankaran, A. Ranganathan and G A.V. Rangam for the Appellants. H 364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A M.K. Ramamurthi, M.A. Krishnmoorthy, M.A. Chinnaswamy, H. Subramaniam and Ms. C. Ramamurthi for the Respondents. Rajendra Sachhar, Ambrish Kumar and M.D. Pandey for the Inter- vener. B The Order of the Court was delivered : Intervention application is allowed. Leave granted. C Civil Appeal No. 4799 of 1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.