STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. versus MOHD. MYNUDDIN

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 532 · Decided: 17-07-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. 
v. 
MOHD. MYNUDDIN 
JULY 17, 1987 
B 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] 
Service Law-Practice & Procedure: 
Selection Post-Promotion on merit-Decision of Selection Com-
mittee to prevail unless vitiated by ma/a fides or bias. Seniority and -
C satisfactory Service not relevant. 
Constitution of India, Articles 226 & 32: Service Matters-
Promotion-Powers of the Court-Court can direct consideration of 
the case-Cannot direct promotion. 
~ 
D 
The respondent holding a Middle Management Grade Scale II 
post in the appellant Bank was fonnd not fit for promotion to Grade 
Scale III by the Selection Committee in the year 1979 and superseded, 
His case was again considered in the years 1980, 1981 and 1983 but ' ~ 
denied promotion. He filed a writ petition in the High Court in 1984 for 
the issue of a direction to the mauagement to promote him to the higher 
E 
post with effect from 1979 with the assertion that he was fully eligible 
for such promotion. 
service was 'satisfactory' and that there were no adverse remarks 
The Single Judge noticed that in respondent's confidential reports 1
for the years 1977-78, 1979-80 and 1980·81 it had been recorded that his 
F 
against him. He, therefore, took the view that there was nothing which 
, 
G 
disentitled the respondent to promotion and that the action of the 
management in not promoting him was arbitrary, and accordingly 
issued a direction to the appellants to promote the respondent with 
effect from 1.8.1979 when his batch mates were promoted. The Division 
Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants. 
In this appeal by special leave it was contended for the appellants 
that the promotion to Middle Management Grade Scale III posts~ • 
depended not merely upon the eligibility but on merit and such promo-
tion was accorded only after a proper evaluation by the Selection Com-
mittee of the service records, performance appraisal and potentiality of 
H the officer concerned to assume higher responsibilities, that the mere 
532 
S.ll.I. v. MOHD. MYNUDDIN 
533 
..... 
absence of adverse remarks did not entitle an employee to promotion to 
A 
the next higher grade automatically when promotion was by selection. 
that after applying the relevant tests laid dow:i by the management for 
promotion to the Middle Management Grade Scale III it was found 
from time to time that the respondent was not entitled to be promoted, 
and that in any event the High Court was not right in issuing a direction 
to the management to promote the respondent to the higher post parti-
B 
,_ 
cularly in the absence of any plea of mala fides. 
----
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: The High Court was not right in directing the appellants 
-· 
to promote the respondent to the Middle Management Grade Scale Ill 
with effect from 1979. [538C] 
c 
If promotion has been deniea arbitrarily or without any reason 
ordinarily the Court can issue a direction to the management to con· 
sider the case of the officer concerned for promotion but it cannot issue 
a direction to promote the officer concerned to the higher post without D 
~ 
giving an opportunity to the management to consider the question of 
promotion. This is because the Court is not by its very nature compe· 
tent to appreciate the abilities, qualities or attributes nel'.essary for the 
task, office or duty of every kind of post which is to be filled up by 
selection. The duties of such posts may need skills of different kinds-
scientific, technical, financial, industrial, commercial, administrative, E 
-') 
educational etc. The evaluation of the abilities should, therefore, in the 
public interest ordinarily be left to be done by the individual or a 
committee consisting of persons who have the knowledge of the require-
~ 
ments of a given post. [536E·H] 
Whenever promotion to a higher post is to be made on the basis of F 
merit no officer can claim promotion to the higher post as a matter of 
right by virtue of seniority alone with effect from the date on which his 
juniors are promoted. It is not sufficient that in his confidential reports 
it is recorded that his services are 'satisfactory'. An officer may be 
capable of discharging the duties of the post held by him satisfactorily 
" ~ 
but he may not be fit for the higher post. Before any such promotion can G 
be effected it is the duty of the management to consider the case of the 
officer concerned on the basis of the relevant materials. Of course, the 
process o

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