Supreme Court of India
CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECRGR CENTRAL BANK A OF INDIA & ORS.versusCENTRAL BANK OF INDIA SC/ST EMPLOYEES WELFARE "ASSOCIATION & ORS.
- Citation
- 2015 INSC 20
- Decided
- 9 January 2015
- Disposal
- Case Partly allowed
- Bench
- JASTI CHELAMESWAR
Holding
There is no reservation in promotion for SC/ST employees in Group‑A posts carrying a salary of Rs 5,700 per month (Scale‑VII and above), but reservation must be provided for promotions up to Scale‑VI.
Summary
The case concerned whether SC/ST employees of public sector banks are entitled to reservation in promotions from one officer scale to the next. The banks relied on Office Memoranda dated 1‑Nov‑1990 and 13‑Aug‑1997, arguing that they only provided a concession and not reservation for Group‑A posts with a salary ceiling of Rs 5,700 per month. The petitioners, representing SC/ST employee unions, contended that the memoranda, read with constitutional provisions, mandated reservation up to Scale‑VI. The Supreme Court examined the memoranda, the constitutional amendment inserting Article 16(4A), and relevant case law, concluding that no reservation exists for promotions in posts above the salary ceiling (Scale‑VII and above), but reservation is required for promotions up to Scale‑VI. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed and the banks were directed to implement reservation for promotions from Scale‑I to Scale‑VI, and the contempt petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Office Memorandum dated 13‑Aug‑1997 creates a provision for reservation in promotion of SC/ST employees in Group‑A posts.
- Whether reservation is applicable for promotions from one officer scale to the next up to Scale‑VI in public sector banks.
- Whether the constitutional provision under Article 16(4A) obliges the State to make reservation in promotions in the absence of a specific statutory rule.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 12, s. Article 15, s. Article 16(4), s. Article 16(4A), s. Eighty‑Fifth Amendment, s. Seventy‑Seventh Amendment
Subjects
ReservationSC/STPromotionPublic sector banksOffice MemorandumArticle 16(4A)Concession vs reservationSalary ceilingScale VII
Judgment
[2015) 1 S.C.R. 55 •
CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DtRECrGR CENTRAL BANK A
OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA SC/ST EMPLOYEES
WELFARE "ASSOCIATION & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 209 of 2015) B
JANUARY 09, 2015.
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.]
Service Law: Reservation - In promotion by selection - C
From one officer rank/grade to next rank in the grade - For
SC/ST employees of Public Sector Bank - Permissibility -
Held: By virtue of Office Memorandums dated 1. 11. 1990 and
13.8.1997 issued by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance
and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, o
Government of India (which was adopted by the Bank) in
matters of promotion within Group-A posts which carry an
ultimate salary of Rs.5, 7001- p.m. i.e. scale VII and above,
there is no provision for reservation - However, there is no
bar from reservation in promotions from Scale-I upwards upto E
Scale VI.
Partly allowing the appeals and disposing of the
contempt petition, the Court
HELD: 1. In Office Memorandum dated 1.11.1990, F
there was no provision for reservation made in favour of
SC/ST candidates in promotion by selection within
Group-A posts carrying an ultimate salary of Rs. 5,700/-
per month. By the Office Memorandum dated 13.8.1997,
the existing provision relating to reservation in promotion G
was allowed to continue beyond 15-11-1997. Thus, this
Memorandum did not make any new provision for
reservation in promotion in favour of SC/ST employees.
On a conjoint reading of these two Office Memorandums,
55 H
56 SUPREMr: COURT REPORTS [2015] 1 S.C.R.
A in the absence of any other provision or Rule evidencing
such a reservation in the matter of promotions, it cannot
be said that there was reservation in promotion within
Group-A posts upto the ultimate salary of Rs. 5,700/- per
month. [para 27, 31 and 32) (79-E; 81-B-C, D-E]
B
2. The Department of Public Enterprises had issued
an Office Memorandum dated 08-11-2004 as to the salary
limit of Rs. 5,700/- mentioned for the purposes of
reservation as Rs.18,300/- (5th Central Pay Commission)
and in the case ·of Public Sector Undertakings who are
C following Industrial Dearness Allowance (IDA) pattern, the
monetary ceiling was fixed as Rs.20,aoo1- (from 01-01-
1996, i.e. 5th Central Pay Commission). The said pay
ceiling is achieved in the appellant Banks only when an
officer reaches Scale-VII. As a fortiorari, the policy of no
D reservation in the matter of promotion is applicable only
from Scale-VII and above. It, therefore, clearly follows that
insofar as promotion from Scale-I to Scale-II, Scale-II to
Scale-Ill, Scale-Ill to Scale-IV, Scale-IV to Scale-V, Seale-
y to Scale-VI are concerned, reservation is to be provided.
E The appellant Banks, therefore, cannot take umbrage
under the aforesaid Memorandum and deny reservation
in favour of SC/ST employees while carrying out
promotions upto Scale-VI. Therefore, to carry out
promotions from Scale-I upwards upto Scale-VI,
F reservation in promotion in favour of SC/ST employees
has to be given. [para 35 and 36) (82-D-F; 83-B]
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1992 (2) Suppl. SCR
454 = 1992 (3) Suppl. SCC 217, Union of India and Others
etc. v. Virpal Singh Chauhan and Others 1995 (4)
=
G Suppl. SCR 158 1995 (6) SCC 684; National Federation
of S. B. I. and Others v. Union of India and Others 1995
=
(2) SCR 748 1995 (3) SCC 532; Pragjyotish Gaonlia Bank
(Now known as Assam Gramin Vikash Bank) and Another v.
H Brijlal Dass 2009 (2) SCR 299 = 2009 (3) SCC 323;
CHAIRMAN &MANG. DIR. CEN. BANK OF INDIA v. CEN. BANK 57 ·
OF INDIA SC/ST EMP. WEL. ASSON.
Himachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribes Employees Federation A
and another v. Himachal Pradesh Samanaya Varg
Karamchari Kalayan Mahasangh and others 2013
(9) SCR 384 =2013 (10) SCC 308; Rohtas Bhankhar and
Others v. Union of India and Another 2014 (8) SCC 872; M.
Nagaraj and others v. Union of India and Others 2006 B
=
(7) Suppl. SCR 336 2006 (8) SCC 212 - referred to.
Case Law Reference :
1992 (2) Suppl. SCR 454 referred to para 8
1995 (4) Suppl. SCR 158 referred to para 9
c
2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 336 referred to para 11
1995 (2) SCR 748 referred to para 18
2009 (2) SCR 299 referred to para 18 D
2013 (9) SCR 384 referred to para 21
2014 (8) sec 872 referred to para 22
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 209 E
of 2015.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09-12-2009 of the
Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in
Writ Appeal No.342 of 1998.
F
With
Contempt Petition (C) No. 320 of 2010 in SLP (C) No. 5046
of 2010
Civil Appeal Nos. 210, 211, 212 and 213 of 2015 G
C.S. Vaidyanathan, Raju Ramachandran, Jaideep Gupta,
J.S. Attri, O.P. Gaggar, Rajesh Singh, Naveen R. Nath, Lalit
Mohini Bhat, Rajiv Nanda, Dr. Krishan Singh Chauhan, Ajit
Kumar Ekka, Ravi Prakash.Chand Kiran, Murari Lal, E.C. H
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 1 S.C.R.
A Vidya Sagar, Jennifer John, Kkeyali Sarkar, Satyajit A. Desai,
Anagha S. Desai, A. Subba Rao, Lakshmi Raman Singh, C.K.
Chandrasekkar, S.R. Setia, Vikas Bansal, Rekha Pandey, D.S.
Mahra, Harshad V. Hameed, Dileep Poolakkot, K. Rajeev,
Mukul Kumar for the appearing parties.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A.K. $1KRI, J. 1. Leave granted. lmpleadment and
intervention applications are allowed.
c 2. The issue which arises for consideration in these
appeals lies within a narrow campus and is crisp one, though
at the same time it is of seminal importance for the parties
before us. It relates to the rule of reservation of the Scheduled
Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) in the promotion in the
D officer grade/scale in the appellant Banks. There is no dispute
that the appellant Banks, which are statutory/public sector
banks, are following the applicable guidelines of the Central
Government pertaining to reservation of SC and ST employees
insofar as their promotion from clerical grade to officer grade
E is concerned. The question to be answered is as to whether
there is any reservation in the promotions from one officer
grade/scale to another grade/scale, when such promotions are
made on selection basis. As per the appellant Banks, there is
no rule of reservation for promotion in the Class A (Class-I) to
the posts/scales having basic salary of more than ?5,700/- and
F in the relevant instructions, issued in the form of Office
Memoranda, only a concession is provided in the manner
officers belonging to SC/ST category are to be considered for
promotion. To put it otherwise, the position taken by the Banks
is that there is no rule of reservation for promotions and the
G candidature of these officers belonging to these categories for
promotion is to be considered on the basis of relaxed
·standards. The respondents, who are SC/ST Employees'
Unions of the appellant Banks or individuals belonging to such
categories, dispute the aforesaid stand taken by the Banks.
H
CHAIRMAN & MANG. DIR. CEN. BANK OF INDIA v. CEN. BANK 59
OF INDIA SC/ST EMP. WEL. ASSON. [AK. SIKRI, J.]
According to them, the circular ,issued by the Central A
Government expressly provides for such a reservation.
3. It is interesting to note that for taking their respective
positions both the parties rely upon O.M. dated 13-08-1997
issued by the Central Government (which, of course, is to be B
read along with other connected office memoranda). Thus,
outcome of these appeals would depend upon the
interpretation that is to be accorded to the said Office
Memorandum dated 13-08-1997. As the Banks are in appeal
against the judgment of High Court of Judicature at Madras C
rendered on 09-12-2009 whereby number of writ appeals were
disposed of, it can clearly be discerned that insofar as High
Court is concerned its interpretation to the aforesaid circular
has gone in favour of the SC/ST employees.
4. Before we revert to the fulcrum of the issue and give our D
answer thereto, we deem it apposite to recapitulate in brief the
historical facts which have led to the present /is.
5. As already noted above, the appellant Banks, which are
statutory Banks and Public Sector Undertakings, have been E
following the reservation policy of the Government of India as
issued by the Government from time to time. For doing so, the
Promotion Policy of each of such bank makes specific
provision in this behalf. It is also a matter of common knowledge
that Ministry of Finance, Government of India is the nodal
ministry for framing policy on reservations for financial F
institutions/banks. To given an example, Regulation 1.1 of the
promotion policy for officers of UCO Bank makes such a
provision in the following manner:
"The Promotion policy for officers in the Bank has been G
designed in the context of the guidelines issued by the
Government from time to time under the Officers Service
Regulations."
It will also be relevant to quote hereunder Regulation 22 H
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 1 S.C.R.
A of the aforesaid promotion policy. This Regulation makes the
following reading:
"22. Concession/Relaxations etc for SC/ST, Physically
Handicapped, Ex-servicemen and Other categories of
officers;
B
22.1 The guidelines/ directives/ administrative instructions
issued by the Government of India from time to time
regarding relaxation/concession/ reservation etc. for SC/
ST, physically handicapped, Ex-serviceman and such other
c special categories of officers in the matter of scale to scale
promotions within the Officers' Grade shall be deemed to
be a part of the policy and given effect to accordingly."
6. It is an accepted position that identical promotion policy
0 is framed by each of these appellant Banks.
7. As per the aforesaid promotion policy, incorporating the
reservation policy framed by the Central Government in respect
of candidates belonging to SC/ST category, the banks are
according 15% reservation for SC and 7.5% reservation for ST
E candidates. It is done at the initial level of recruitment and also
for promotion in the clerical cadre. Such a reservation is also
provided for promotion from clerical grade to the lowest rank
in the officers grade which is commonly known as Junior
Management Grade Scale-I (Scale-I). However, when it comes
F to promotion from Scale-I to the next scale, which is known as
. Middle Management Grade Scale-II (Scale-II), the Banks have
not been making any reservations while carrying out these
promo~ions. As per the Banks, it is because of Office
Memorandum No. 38012/6/83-East(SCT) dated 01-11-1990
G issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and
Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training), Government
of India clearly stating that there is no reservation within Group
'A' posts.
8. The matter regarding reservations in promotions was
H
CHAIRMAN & MANG. DIR. GEN. BANK OF INDIA v. GEN. BANK 61
OF INDIA SC/ST EMP. WEL. ASSON. [AK SIKRI, J.]
considered by a nine Judge Bench of this Court in Indra A
Sawhney v. Union of lndia1, which was a judgment rendered
on 15-11-1992. The Court specifically held that the reservation
under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India is confined to
initial appointment and cannot extend to reservation in the
matters of promotion. In order to nullify the effect of the aforesaid B
dicta, there was an amendment to Article 16 by Constitution
(Seventy-Seventh Amendment) Act with effect from 17-06-1995.
Vide this amendment, after Clause 4, Clause 4A was inserted
in Article 16 of the Constitution, which was couched in the
following language: c
4A. Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from
making any provision for reservation in matters of
promotion to any class or classes of posts in the services
under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are D
not adequately represented in the services under the state."
Clause (4) of Article 16 is worded as follows:
"4. Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from E
making any provision for the reservation of appointments
or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which,
in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented
in the services under the State.
The constitutional position on the insertion of Clause 4A F
is that the State is now empowered to make provision for
reservation in matter of promotions as well, in favour of SC and
ST wherever the State is of the opinion that SCs and STs are
not adequately represented in the service under the State.
Nevertheless, it is only an enabling provision which empowers G
the State to make any provision for reservation for SC and ST
candidates in the matter of promotion as well.
9. In order to complete the historical narration of facts, it
1. (1992) Supp 3 sec 211. H
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 1 S.C.R.
A becomes necessary to mention that after the aforesaid
amendment, a question had arisen as to whether a person in
SC or ST category, who gets accelerated promotion because
of reservation would also get consequential seniority in the
higher post if he gets that promotion earlier than his senior in
B general category. The Court answered this question in the case
of Union of India and Others etc. v. Virpa/ Singh Chauhan and
Others2 holding that such an employee belonging to SC/ST
category on promotion would not get consequential seniority
and his seniority will be governed by the panel position. This
C led to another Constitution amendment and the Parliament
enacted Constitution (Eighty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 2001
whereby Clause 4A of Article 16 was amended. The amended
Clause 4A reads as under: ·
"4A. Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from
D making any provision for reservation in matters of
promotion with consequential seniority to any class or
classes of posts in the services under the State in favour
of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which,
in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented
E in the services under the State."
10. The constitutional position, as it stands now, in view
of the aforesaid amendment, is that such SC/ST candidates
who get the benefit of accelerated promotion are provided
F consequential seniority as well. This amendment, thus, nullifies
the effect of the judgment of this Court in Virpal Singh Chauhan
(supra). Another significant aspect which is to be noted is that
this amendment was made retrospectively from 17.06.1995, i.e.
the date of coming into force the original Clause 4A of Article
G 16.
11. Constitutional validity of Clause 4A of Article 16 as well
as Clause 48 which was also amended vide Eighty-Fifth
Constitution Amendment, was challenged before this Court and
H 2. (1995) a sec 684.
CHAIRMAN & MANG. DIR. CEN. BANK OF INDIA v. CEN. BANK 63
OF INDIA SC/ST EMP. WEL. ASSON. [AK. SIKRI, J.]
this challenge was repelled in the case of M. Nagaraj and A
others v. Union of India and Others3. The Court specifically held
that these provisions flow from Article 16(4) and, therefore do
not alter the structure of Article 16(4). Further, they do not
obliterate any of the constitutional requirement, namely, ceiling
limit of 50% (quantitative limitation), the concept of creamy layer B
(qualitative exclusion), the sub-classification between OBCs, on
the one hand, and SCs/STs on the other hand, as held in Indra
Sawhney (supra). The Court, at the same time, made it clear
that the ceiling limit of 50%, the concept of creamy layer and
the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of C
representation and overall administrative efficiency are the
constitutional requirements without which the structure of
equality of opportunity in Article 16 would collapse.
12. After the amendment in Article 16 of ,the Constitution, D
-with incorporation of Clause 4A therein, the Government of India
issued Office Memorandum dated 13.08-1997 as the
interpretation of this O.M. is the bone of contention. As the
outcome of these appeals largely depends on the interpretation
of this Memorandum, we feel apposite to reproduce the said
O.M. dated 13-08-1997 in toto: E
"No. 36012/18/95-Esst(Res.) Pt:lr
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Ministry of Personnel Public, Grievances and Pensions,
Department of Personnel and Training F
North Block, New Delhi
Dated the 13th August, 1997
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RESERVATION FOR THE SCs/STs IN G
PROMOTION
The undersigned is directed to invite attention to this
Department's OM No. 36012/37/93-Esst. (SCT) dated
3. (2006) B sec 212. H
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 1 S.C.R.
A 19.8.1993 clarifying that the Supreme Court had, in the
Indira Sawhney case, permitted the reservation for the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, in promotion, to
continue for a period of five years from 16.11.1992.
2. Consequent to the Judgment in Indira Sawhney's case
B
the Constitution was amended by the Constitution (Seventy
seventh Amendment) Act, 1995 and Article 16(4A) was
incorporated in the Constitution. This article enables the
State to provide for reservation in matters of promotion,
in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
c Tribes, which in the opinion of the State are not adequately
represented in the Services under the State.
3. In pursuance of Article 16(4A), it has been decided to
continue the Reservation in promotion as at present, for
D the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in the
services/posts under the Central Government beyond
15.11.1997 till such time as the representation of each of
the above two categories in each cadre reaches the
prescribed percentages of reservation whereafter, the
E reservation in promotion shall continue to maintain the
representation to the extent of the prescribed percentages
for the respective categories.
4. All Ministries/Department are requested to urgently
bring these instructions to the notice of all their attached/
F subordinate offices as also the Public Sector
Undertakings and Statutory Bodies etc.
Sd/-
(Y.G. PARANDE)
Director (Reservation)"
G
Impugned Judgment
13. The respondents Associations representing SC and
ST employees had filed writ petitions in the High Court of
H Madras submitting that in spite of there being a clear policy of
CHAIRMAN & MANG. DIR. GEN. BANK OF INDIA v. GEN. BANK 65
OF INDIA SC/STEMP. WEL. ASSON. [AK. SIKRI, J.]
reservation even for promotion from one category of officer to A
the higher category of officers, the appellant Banks had not
been making any provision for such reservations while carrying
out the promotions. Mandamus was sought seeking directions
against the Bank to specify such reservation to SC/ST officers
as per the promotion policy for officers. The learned Single B
Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions holding
that Article 16(4A) was only an enabling provision which permits
the State to make provisions for reservation insofar as
promotions are concerned. However, in the instant case, no
such provision was made. No material was produced by the c
writ petitioners which could demonstrate any such specific
provision for promotion.
14. The writ petitioners challenged said order by filing writ
appeals before the Division Bench. The Division Bench has
taken a contrary view. A perusal of the judgment of the Division D
Bench would spell out that it has gone by the spirit behind
Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution which are in the nature
of affirmative actions that can be taken by the State in providing
reservations for the socially and educationally backward people
and that includes SC and ST classes. It has pointed out that E
Article 16(4) is specifically designed to give a due share in the
State power to those who have remained out of it mainly on
account of their social, educational, economic backwardness
as reservation affords such classes of citizens a golden
opportunity to serve the nation and thus gain security, status, F
comparative affluence and influence in decision making
process. It was with this spirit in mind Clause 4A was inserted
introducing an enabling provision for providing reservation in
the matter of promotion as well. The High Court thereafter took
note of the statistics that was placed on record to show the G
strength of SC/ST officers in various grades/scales/cadres in
respect of UCO Bank as well as Central Bank of India and
found that there was hardly any representation in the higher
scales, what to talk of adequate representation. The figures
given in respect of Central Bank of India are noted in para 22 H
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 1 S.C.R.
A of the impugned judgment, stating as under:
"22 ....... A consolidated statement for the promotions from
the year 1997 to 2008 in MMG:lll-IV:, SMG: IV-V; SMG V-
VI; TMG Vl-TMG VII would depict a bleak picture regarding
B the entire aspect since least or no presentation for SC/ST
could be seen glaringly. As per these calculations for the
total promotions of 20 posts, only one SC candidate got
promotion in the year 2007 and for a total promotions of
171, within these categories only nine SC candidates got
promotion. In promotions effected for the years 1997 and
c 2002, respectively for 19 posts and six posts, no SC/ST
candidate was offered promotion. In the year 1999, for a
total number of 126 posts, only one SC candidate was
given promotion. Likewise, for a whopping 308 numbered
of promotions in the year 2006 a meager 36 candidates
D of SC/ST were promoted."
The Court also noticed almost identical feature in UCO
Bank giving the following details :
"23. .. ..... As per the scale wise representation of SC/ST
E
officers as on 31.3.2008 in the UCO Bank, in Scale IV
posts there is a short fall of 50 SC officers and 31 ST
officers in Scale V posts, there is a short fall of 10 SC
officers and 7 ST officers; in Scale VI, there is a short fall
of 5 SC officers and 2 ST officers and in Scale VII posts,
F
there is a short fall of 3 SC officers and one ST officer."
15. Office Memorandum dated 13-08-1997 has been read
in the light of the aforesaid constitutional spirit as well as
inadequate representation of SC/ST category officers in the
G Banks holding that the mandate of the said O.M. was to provide
for reservation.
16. While holding so, the High Court also repelled the
contention of the Banks predicated on Article 335 of the
H Constitution on the basis of which it was contended that
CHAIRMAN & MANG. DIR. CEN. BANK OF INDIA v. CEN. BANK 67
OF INDIA SC/ST EMP. WEL. ASSON. [A.K. SIKRI, J.]
introduction of rule of reservation in promotion would reduce the A
efficiency of administration of Banks. The Court specifically took
note of Constitution Eighty-Second Amendment which was
made effective from 08-09-2000 and provides that nothing in
this Article shall prevent in making any provision in favour of
. the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes B
for relaxation in qualifying marks in any examination or lowering
the standards of evaluation, for reservation in matters of
promotion to any class or classes of services or posts in
connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State. In the
opinion of the High Court, when Constitution has given such c
extra protection to the under privileged communities so as to
enjoy equal opportunities as guaranteed by the Constit11tion, the
Banks are not justified in sleeping over the matter providing
reservations in promotions for a decade with no good reasons
to offer.
D
17. The position taken by both the parties remains the
same before us as well. According to the Banks, vide O.M.
dated 13-08-1997 "it has been decided to continue the
reservation in promotion as at present, for the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in the services/posts ........... ". E
It is, thus, argued that this O.M. did not make any reservation
in the matter of promotion but whatever was existing earlier has
been continued. M/s. C.S. Vaidyanathan and Raju
Ramachandran, learned Senior Advocates, who argued for
these Banks laid strong emphasis on the aforesaid language F
employed in the O.M. and submitted that only existing position
continued and the position which was existing was that there
was no specific provision for reservation. The only provision
which existed was judging the candidature of SC/ST
candidates for promotion in Class A (Class I) service drawing G
more than basic salary of ?5, 700/-, to apply relaxed standards.
It was submitted that such a provision existed in O.M. dated
01-11-1990. It was pointed that in para 2 of this O.M. a mention
was made about the concession which was to be given to the
officers belonging to these categories and in para 3 it was H
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 1 S.C.R.
A amply clarified that there is no reservation in promotion by
selectio~ Paras 2and 3 of O.M. dated 01-11-1990 read as
under:
"2. Though in the OM cited above it has been clearly
mentioned that in promotion by selection within Class I
B
(now Group A) to posts which carry an ultimate salary of
Rs. 2000/- per month or less (since revised to Rs. 5700/-
) the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes will be given
concession namely "those scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes who are senior enough in the zone of
c consideration for promotion so as to be within the number
of vacancies for which select list has to be drawn up, would
be included in that list provided they are not considered
unfit for promotion", doubts have been expressed in certain
quarters as to whether the concession given herein above
D is a reservation or a concession.
3. It is hereby clarified that in promotion by selection within
group A posts which carry an ultimate salary of Rs. 5700/
- p.m. there is no reservation."
E
18. It was argued that a conjoint reading of the aforesaid
two circulars, namely, O.M. dated 01-11-1990 and 13-08-1997
would manifest that the provision was made for concession and
not reservation in the matter of promotion. Reliance was placed
on two judgments of this Court where distinction between
F concession and reservation is explained lucidly:
(i) National Federation of S.B.I. and Others v. Union of
India and Others4
G "15. In 1987, the Government of India issued the 7th Edn.
of the said Brochure in which para 9.2, corresponding to
the one quoted above, reads as follows:
MHA OM No. 1/9/69. Estt.(SCT) dated 26-3-70 and Deptt.
H 4. (1995) 3 sec 532.
CHAIRMAN & MANG. DIR. CEN. BANK OF INDIA v. CEN. BANK 69
OF INDIA SC/ST EMP. WEL. ASSON. [AK SIKRI, J.]
of Personnel & AR OM No. 1/10/74-Estt.(SCT) dated 23- A
12-1974"
"9.2 Promotion by selection method.- (a) Promotions by
selection within Group A (Class-I).
In promotions by selection to posts within Group A (Class B
I) which carry an ultimate salary of Rs 2000 per month, or
less, (Rs 2250 per month or less in the revised scale)
there is no reservation, but the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes officers, who are senior enough in the
zone of consideration for promotion so as to be within the C
number of vacancies for which the select list has been
drawn up, would be included in that list provided they are
not considered unfit for promotion. Their position in the
select list would, however, be the same as assigned to
them by the Departmental Promotion Committee on the D
basis of their record of service. They would not be given
for this purpose, one grading higher than the grading
otherwise assignable to them on the basis of their record
of service.
E
In order to improve the chances of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes officers for selection to the higher
categories of posts in Group A (Class I).
(i) Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes officers in Group
A (Class I) Services/Posts should be provided with more F
opportunities for institutional training and for attending
seminars/symposia/conferences. Advantage would also
be taken of the training facilities available at the Lal
Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration,
Mussoorie, National Police Academy, Hyderabad, Indian G
Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi, the
Administrative Staff College, Hyderabad etc. and
(it) It would be the special responsibility of the immediate
superior officers of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled
H
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 1 S.C.R.
A Tribes officers in Class I to give advice and guidance to
the latter to improve the quality of their work."
xx xx xx
19. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel. It is
B admitted on all hands that so far as promotions within
Class I are concerned - with which alone the
Memorandum dated 26-3-1970 deals - there are no
orders of the Government of India applying the rule of
reservation. We have referred hereinbefore to the earlier
c Memorandum dated 11-7-1968 (which in turn refers to a
yet earlier Memorandum dated 8-11-1963). Those earlier
Memorandums provide for reservation in Classes II, Ill and
IV but not for promotion to Class I and not at any rate to
promotions within Class I. Nor does the Memorandum
dated 26-3-1970 provide for such reservation. The idea
D
is self-evident. While the rule of reservation is made
applicable to the lower categories, viz., Classes II, Ill and
IV (to the extent specified in the said Memorandums), no
such reservation was thought advis~ble in the matter of
promotions within Class I. Instead of reservation, a
E concession was provided, the concession explained
hereinabove. It is this fact which has been reiterated,
affirmed and clarified in the subsequent letters of the
Finance Ministry. It is thus clear that the letters of the
Ministry of Finance dated 30-5-1981 and the subsequent
F ones do not amend or modify the Office Memorandum
dated 26-3-1970 but merely explain it. They make explicit
what is implicit in it. So is the rendering of para 9.2 in the
7th Edn. in the Brochure. What all they say is that the rule
of reservation does not apply to promotions within Class I
G (i.e., promotions to be made on the basis of selection to
posts which carry an ultimate salary of Rs 2250 per month
or less in the revised scale) but a concession in terms of
para 2 of the Memorandum dated 26-3-1970 is provided
in that behalf. It cannot, therefore, be said that either the
H letters of the Ministry of Finance or the rendering of para
CHAIRMAN & MANG. DIR. CEN. BANK OF INDIA v. GEN. BANK 71
OF INDIA SC/ST EMP. WEL. ASSON. [A.K. SIKRI, J.]
9.2 in the 7th Edn .. of the.Brochure is inconsistent with the A
Memorandum dated 26-3-1970 or that they are contrary
to the orders of the Government.
xx xx xx
31. For the above reasons, we hold that in the matter of B
promotion by selection to posts within Class I which carry
an ultimate salary of Rs 2250 in the revised scale of pay
per month or less, there is no reservation in favour of
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes but they are entitled
to the concession contained in para 2 of the Office C
Memorandum dated 26-3-1970 issued by the Ministry of
Home Affairs. The concession is that those Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes officers who are senior enough
in the zone of consideration for promotion so as to be
within the number of vacancies for which the select list has o
to be drawn up will be included in the select list provided
they are not considered unfit for promotion. (This rule has
been explained in the body of the judgment by giving an
illustration, which it is not necessary to repeat here.) The
position of such· candidates included in the select list
E
would, however, be the same as is assigned to them by
the Departmental Promotion Committee on the basis of
their record of service. The said candidates would not be
entitled, for the purpose of the said selection, one grading
higher than the grading otherwise assignable to them on
F
the basis of their record of service. This is also the purport
of para 9 of the Brochure insofar as it deals with
promotions within Class I."
(ii) Pragjyotish Gaonlia Bank (Now known as Assam
Gramin Vikash Bank) and Another v. Brijlal Dass5 G
"24. Having carefully considered the submissions made on
behalf of the respective parties, we are inclined to agree
with Mr Mehta that the provision relating to reservation
5. (2009) 3 sec 323. H
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 1 S.C.R.
A posts extracted hereinabove, contained in the Circular
dated 10-6-1997, has been wrongly interpreted by the
Division Bench of the High Court. The said condition is in
the nature of a concession as was contemplated in the
Circular dated 9-11-1994, issued by NABARD in order to
B give an opportunity to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe candidate to be automatically appointed, if he came
within the number of vacancies available. It was a
concession to enable such a candidate to avoid the
process of selection, which all the other candidates were
c required to undergo.
25. The said provision has been very elaborately explained
by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in National
Federation of SB/ v. Union of India; (1995) 3 SCC 532 .
As has been explained in the said judgment, the zone of
D consideration is the list of selected candidates chosen in
order of seniority to be considered for the purpose of filling
up the availabl.e vacancies and merely by coming within
the zone of consideration a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe candidate would not be entitled to automatic
E selection. The concession relating to reservation does not
mean that any of the vacant posts were required to be kept
reserved for such Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe
candidate. It is only when such a candidate came within
the number of vacancies that such a concession would be
F applicable to him/her for appointment without going through
the selection proc~s.
19. Learned counsel appearing for respondents, including
Dr. Krishan Singh Chauhan, Mr. E.C. Vidya Sagar, Mr. A.
G Subba Rao, Mr.Satyajit A. Desai and Mr. C.K. Chandrasekhar,
Advocates, placed strong reliance on the reasons given by the
High Court in support of its verdict projecting dismal state of
affairs virtually no representation of the SC/ST employees in
the officers category, particularly, scale IV and above.
H 20. It was also argued by these respondents that after the
CHAIRMAN & MANG. DIR. CEN. BANK OF INDIA v. CEN. BANK 73
OF INDIA SC/ST EMP. WEL. ASSON. [AK. SIKRI, J.]
impugned judgment of the Division Bench allowing writ appeals A
of these respondents, on 14-01-2010 and 01-02-2010, the
Union Government had directed the implementation of the
impugned High Court judgment. The Bank has filed the SLP,
thereafter. Their present stand that there will be no reservation
but only concession by considering officers who are senior B
enough to be within the zone and are not declared unfit, is
misleading. In fact, a Bill was passed in both the Houses of the
Parliament by the previous Government to grant reservations
in promotions at all levels, (i.e. 117th Constitutional
Amendment), which had lapsed subsequently. It was argued c
that the Union Government cannot take a different stand now.
21 The claim of the Banks that grant of reservation in
promotion from Scale-I level onwards would affect efficiency,
was also refuted by contending that the officers belonging to
SC/ST have been promoted only on the basis of their own D
merit/performance. It was submitted that the State cannot act
contrary to Constitutional provisions. It was submitted that the
decision dated 10-03-1995 in National Federation of S. B. /.
(supra) and relied by the Banks related to pre-77th Amendment,
which came to be passed on 17-06-1995. As per them, the E
decision in M. Nagaraj (supra) answers the issues raised by
the Banks. Pointed reference was made to the 117th
Amendment Bill, which was taken judicial notice of in Himacha/
Pradesh Scheduled Tribes Employees Federation and
another v._ Himachal Pradesh Samanaya Varg Karamchari F
Kalayan Mahasangh and others6 • Attention was drawn to
paras 32 to 34 of the ~aid judgment, which are as under:
"32. Here, we would like to allude to the words of Lord
Denning, in Ronde/ v. Worsley (1967) 1 QB 443 about the G
conduct expected of an advocate:
" ... As an advocate he is a minister of justice equally with
the Judge .... I say 'all he honourably can' because his
6. (2013) 10 sec 308. H
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 1 S.C.R.
A duty is not only to his client. He has a duty to the court which
is paramount. It is a mistake to suppose that he is the
mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants: or his tool
to do what he directs. He is none of these things. He owes
allegiance to a higher cause. It is the cause of truth and
B justice. He must not consciously misstate the facts. He
must not knowingly conceal the truth. He must not unjustly
make a charge of fraud, that is, without evidence to support
it. He must produce all the relevant authorities, even those
that are against him. He must see that his client discloses,
c if ordered, the relevant documents, even those that are
fatal to his case. He must disregard the most specific
instructions of his client, if they conflicts with his duty to the
court. The code which requires a barrister to do all this is
not a code of law. It is the code of honour." (QB p. 502)
D (emphasis supplied)
In our opinion, the aforesaid dicta of Lord Denning is an
apt exposition of the very high standard of moral, ethical
and professional conduct expected to be maintained by
E the members of legal profession. We expect no less of an
advocate/counsel in this country.
33. Here, in this case, on 26-4-2010 a statement was
made on behalf of the State of H.P. that "the State intends
to collect more details with regard to representation of the
F SCs/STs and to pass appropriate orders within a
reasonable time i.e. approximately within three months
after collecting the necessary details and datas". Having
very deftly avoided a decision on merits in SLP (C) No.
30143 of 2009, the State has totally failed to live up to the
G solemn statement made to this Court. It has hedged and
hemmed and prevaricated from 26-4-2010 till date. In spite
of the requisite data being available, the policy of
reservation already adopted by the State has not been
implemented. We, therefore, do not agree with Dr Dhavan
H that the applicants are seeking a mandamus to adopt a
CHAIRMAN & MANG. DIR. CEN. BANK OF INDIA v. CEN. BANK 75
OF INDIA SC/STEMP. WEL. ASSON. [AK SIKRI, J.]
policy in reservation. From the above narration, it is A
evident that the applicants want the State to implement its
own decisions. The prayer is:
"Direct the respondent/State Government to decide
the case in time-bound manner on the basis of data B
already available/submitted to the Cabinet Sub-
committee on 25-4-2011 within a period of one
month and;
Further direct stay on all promotions pending
decision taken in this case." C
34. The final excuse offered by the State for not granting
the aforesaid relief is that the State now awaits the
finalisation of the 117th Constitution Amendment. We
decline to accept the reasons put forward for not honouring o
the statement solemnly made to this Court on 26-4-2010.
This Court has been more than considerate to the requests
made by the State for extension of time. This last excuse
about awaiting the finalisation of the proposed Hundred-
seventeenth Constitutional Amendment is the proverbial E
last straw on the camel's back. As stated earlier, the
proposed 117th Constitutional Amendment would not
adversely affect the merits of the clam (sic) of the petitioner ·
for grant of promotion with consequential seniority. By the
aforesaid proposed Amendment, the existing Article 16
F
clause (4-A) is to be substituted by the following clause (4-
A)-
"16. (4-A) Notwithstanding anything contained
elsewhere in the Constitution, the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes notified under G
Article 341 and Article 342, respectively, shall be
1
deemed to be backward and nothing in this article
or in Article 335 shall prevent the State from making
any provision for reservation in matters of
H
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 1 S.C.R.
A promotions, with consequential seniority, to any
class or classes of posts in the services under the
State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes to the extent of the percentage
of reservation provided to the Scheduled Castes
B and the Scheduled Tribes in the services of the
State."
22. Much reliance was also placed on a recent decision
of this Court in the case Rohtas Bhankhar and Others v. Union
C of India and Another, on the basis of which it was contended
that the reliance of the Banks in that case on O.M. dated
22.07.1997 was totally misplaced as, inasmuch as, in this case
the said O.M. is held to be bad in law as per the discussion
contained in the following paragraphs: ~
D "9. We are in respectful agreement with the decision in UT,
Chandigarh v. Ku/deep Singh, (1997) 9 SCC 199 and
approve the same. Ordinarily, we would have sent the
matter to the regular Bench for disposal of the matters but
having regard to the nature of controversy and the fact that
E the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi (for short "the
Tribunal") has followed S. Vinod Kumar v. Union of India,
(1996) 6 sec 580 which is not good law and resultantly
the 1997 OM is also illegal, in our view, the agony of the
appellants need not be prolonged as they are entitled to
F the reliefs.
10. Consequently, the civil appeals are allowed. The
impugned order is set aside. The 1997 OM is declared
illegal. The respondents are directed to modify the results
in the Section Officers/ Stenographers (Grade B/Grade I)
G Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, 1996 by
providing for reservation and extend all consequential
reliefs to the appellants, if not granted so far. No costs."
H 7. c2014) s sec a12.
CHAIRMAN & MANG. DIR. CEN. BANK OF INDIA v. CEN. BANK 77
OF INDIA SC/ST EMP. WEL. ASSON. [AK. SIKRI, J.]
23. Before discussing the main issue involved, it would be A
in the fitness of things to iron out some of the creases
surrounding the main issue. In fact, this exercise would facilitate
understanding the precise tenor of the issue that needs to be
addressed and answered.
B
24. In the first instance, we make it clear that there is no
dispute about the constitutional position envisaged in Articles
15 and 16, insofar as these provisions empower the State to
take affirmative action in favour of SC/ST category persons by
making reservations for them in the employment in the Union
or the State (or for that matter, public sector/authorities which C
are treated as State under Article 12 of the Constitution). The
laudable objective underlying these provisions is also to be kept
in mind while undertaking any exercise pertaining to the issues
touching upon the reservation of such SC/ST employees.
Further, such a reservation can not only be made at the entry D
level but is permissible in the matters of promotions as wells.
At the same time, it is also to be borne in mind that Clauses 4
and 4A of Article 16 of the Constitution are only the enabling
provisions which permit the State to make provision for
reservation of these category of persons. Insofar as making of E
provisions for reservation in matters of promotion to any class
or classes of post is concerned, such a provision can be made
in favour of SC/ST category employees if, in the opinion of the
State, they are not adequately represented in services under
the State. Thus, no doubt, power lies with the State to make a F
provision, but, at the same time, courts cannot issue any
mandamus to the State to necessarily make such a provision.
a
It is for the State to act, in given situation, and to take such
an affirmative action. Of course, whenever there exists such a
provision for reservation in the matters of recruitment or the G
promotion, it would bestow an enforceable right in favour of
persons belonging to SC/ST category and on failure on the part
of any authority to reserve the posts, while making selections/
promotions, the beneficiaries of these provisions can approach
the Court to get their rights enforced. What is to be highlighted H
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 1 S.C.R.
A is that existence of provision for reservation in the matter of
selection or promotion, as the case may be, is the sine qua
non for seeking mandamus as it is only when such a provision
is made by the State, a right shall accrue in favour of SC/ST
candidates and not otherwise.
B
25. It is not in dispute that the rule of reservation is followed
for promotions from clerical grade to the lowest rank in the
officer grade. The question, however, is as to whether there is
any provision for reservation when promotion from a particular
rank in the officer grade is to be made to the next rank in the
C said grade, namely, from Scale-I to Scale-II, Scale-II to Scale-
111 and so on.
26. While considering_this question, we have to keep in
mind that reservation policy of the Central Government is
D applicable to the appellant Banks. It is the common case of
both the parties. In fact, as already noted above, there is a
specific provision to this effect in the promotion policies framed
by the appellant Banks.
E 27. Next thing which is to be kept in mind is the two office
memoranda, one dated 1.11.1990 and the other dated
13.8.1997, which are referred to by the counsel for the parties.
We have already reproduced the aforesaid two office
memoranda. Insofar as, Office Memorandum dated 1.11.1990
is concerned, a bare reading of this provision would reflect the
F following two aspects:
(a) In promotion by selection within Class-I (Group-A) post,
the SC/ST candidates are to be given 'concession'.
G (b) This concession is available to those SC/ST
employees who are senior enough in the zone of consideration
for promotion so as to be within the number of vacancies for
which select list has to be drawn up.
Thus, first requirement is that such SC/ST candidates who
H come within the zone of consideration for promotion are senior
CHAIRMAN & MANG. DIR. CEN. BANK OF INDIA v. CEN. BANK 79
OF INDIA SC/ST EMP. WEL. ASSON. [AK. SIKRl, J.]
enough to be within the number of vacancies. Once they come A
within the aforesaid zone of consideration, they have to be
included in the list, provided they are not considered unfit for
promotion. It clearly follows from the above that once they come
under the zone of consideration for promotion so as to be within
the number of vacancies for which select list has to be drawn B
up, for such SC/ST employees the only embargo to deprive
them of promotion is when they are found unfit for promotion.
For other officers in general category, depending upon the rule
of promotion, there may be much stricter criteria based on
comparative merit or selection by merit, etc. However, in case c
of such senior enough SC/ST candidates, the criteria appears
to be seniority, subject to fitness.
(c) This OM specifically clears the doubt that the aforesaid
provision is only a concession and not reservation in favour of
SC/ST candidates, inasmuch as para 3 of the OM states that 0
"It is hereby clarified that in promotion by selection within
Group-A post, which carry ultimate salary of Rs. 5, 7001- per
month, there is no reservation". It is clear from the above that
insofar as Office Memorandum dated 1.11.1990 is concerned,
there was no provision for reservation made in favour of SCI E
ST candidates in promotion by selection within Group-A posts
carrying an ultimate salary of Rs. 5,700 per month.
28. No doubt, this Office Memorandum was issued in the
year 1990, that is much before amendment in Article 16 of the F
Constitution, which was carried out in the year 1995 by inserting
Clause 4A. However, as already pointed out above, Clause 4A
is an enabling provision which empowers the State to make
reservations in the matter of promotions as well as in favour of
SC/ST employees. There was no such provision till 1.11.1990 G
in the matter of promotion by selection within Group-A post
which carry an ultimate salary of Rs. 5,700/- per month.
29. Having understood this, we come to Office
Memoradum dated 13.8.1997 to find out as to whether this
H
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 1 S.C.R.
A Memorandum makes any provision for reservations in the
matter of promotion in favour of SC/ST employees, inasmuch
as no other Office \llemorandum or Circular or Rule, etc. is
produced on record for this purpose.
30. We have already noted above that a nine Judge Bench
8
decision of this Court in Indra Sawhney (supra) held that
Clause 4 of Article 16 does not cover the cases of promotion,
meaning thereby, as per the said clause no reservation in
favour of SC/ST persons in the matter of promotions is
C permissible. It is to nullify the effect of this dicta in the said
judgment that Clause 4A was inserted in Article 16 by
Constitution's Seventy-Seventh Amendment with effect from
17-06-1995. However, it is also a matter of record that in Indra
Sawhney's case (supra), this Court had also clarified that
reservation for SC/STs in promotion would continue for a
D period of five years from 16-11-1992. What it meant was that
if there is a provision of reservation made in the matter of
promotions, notwithstanding the dicta in the said case that such
a reservation is not permissible, ~hose provisions were allowed
to continue for a period of five years from 16-11-1992.
E Thereafter, before the expiry of five years, constitutional
provision was incorporated in the form of Clause 4A by making
provision for reservation in the matter of promotions as well.
These facts are taken note of in first two paras of Office
Memorandum dated 13-08-1997. Thereafter, in the 3rd para
F of the said Memorandum, it is provided:
"3. In pursuance of Article 16(4A), it has been decided to
continue the Reservation in promotion as at present, for
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in the
services/posts under the Central Government beyond
G
15.11.1997 till such time as the representation of each of
the above two categories in each cadre reaches the
prescribed percentages of reservation whereafter, the
reservation in promotion shall continue to maintain the
representation to the extent of the prescribed percentages
H for the resp~ctlve. categories."
CHAIRMAN & MANG. DIR. CEN. BANK OF INDIA v. CEN. BANK 81
OF INDIA SC/ST EMP. WEL. ASSON. [AK. SIKRI, J.]
31. What is decided is to continue the reservation in A
promotion, which was prevalent at that time, for the SC/ST
employees, which was to continue in terms of the judgment of
this Court in Indra Sawhney (supra) till 15-11-1997, even
beyond 15-11-1997, till such time as the representation of each
of the above two categories in each cadre reaches the B
prescribed percentages of reservation whereof. It is, thus,
crystal clear from a bare reading of this para that the existing
provision relating to reservation in promotion was allowed to
continue beyond 15-11-1997. Thus, this Memorandum did not
make any new provision for reservation in promotion in favour c
of SC/ST employees.
32. We have already noticed above that in matters of
promotion within Group-A posts, which carry an ultimate salary
of Rs. 5, 700/- per month, there was no provision for any
reservation. On a conjoint reading of these two Office D
Memorandums, in the absence of any other provision or Rule
evidencing such a reservation in the matter of promotions, it
cannot be said that there was reservation in promotion within
Group-A posts upto the ultimate salary of Rs. 5,700/- per month.
The High Court in the impugned judgment has gone by the lofty E
ideals enshrined in Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution as
well as the fact that in these Banks there is no adequate
representation of SC/ST category of officers in Group-IV and
above. That may be so. It can only provide justification for
making a provision of this nature. However, in the absence of F
such a provision, same cannot be read by overstretching the
language of Office Memorandum dated 13-08-1997. It is for the
State to take stock of the ground realities and take a decision
as to whether it is necessary to make provision for reservation
in promotions to the aforesaid post as well. G
33. Having said so, one other aspect which has to be
necessarily addressed to at this stage calls for our attention.
This aspect, which we are going to point out now, has been
totally glossed over by the learned Single Judge as well as the
H
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 1 S.C.R.
A Division Bench of the High Court in their respective judgments.
34. It is provided in Office Memorandum dated 01-11-
1990, and we have repeatedly stated above, that there is no
reservation in promotion by seiection within only those Group-
s A posts which carry an ul.timate salary of Rs. 5,700/- per month.
In such cases, it is only concession that applies. We have
accepted the contention of the appellant Banks in this behalf,
as per the discussion contained hereinabove. Significantiy,
what follows is that reservation is provided in promotion by
C selection qua those posts which carry an ultimate salary of less
than Rs. 5, 7001- per month (pre-revised).
35. The Department of Public Enterprises had issued an
Office Memorandum dated 08-11-2004 as to the salary limit
of Rs. 5,700/- mentioned for the purposes of reservation as Rs.
D 18,300/- (5th Central Pay Commission) and in the case of
Public Sector Undertakings who are following Industrial
. Dearness Allowance (IDA) pattern, the monetary ceiling was
fixed as Rs. 20,800/- (from 01-01-1996, i.e. 5th Central Pay
Commission). The said pay ceiling is achieved in the appellant
E Banks only when an officer reaches Scale-VII. As a fortiorari,
the policy of no reservation in the matter of promotion is
applicable only from Scale-VII and above. It, therefore, clearly
follows that insofar as promotion from Scale-I to Scale-II, Scale-
11 to Scale-Ill, Scale-Ill to Scale-IV, Scale-IV to Scale-V, Scale-
F V to Scale-VI are concerned, reservation is to be provided. The
appellant Banks, therefore, cannot take umbrage under the
aforesaid Memorandum and deny reservation in favour of SC/
ST employees while carrying out promotions upto to Scale-VI.
36. Upshot of the aforesaid discussion would be to allow
G these appeals partly. While setting aside the impugned
judgment of the High Court to the extent it holds that Office
Memorandum dated 13-08-1997 makes a provision for
reservation, it is clarified that at present there is no provision
for reservation in promotion by selection only in respect of those
H posts which carry an ultimate salary of Rs. 5, 700/- per month
CHAIRMAN & MANG. DIR. CEN. BANK OF INDIA v. CE~. BANK 83
OF INDIA SC/STEMP. WEL. ASSON. [AK. SIKRI, J.]
(revised to Rs.18,300/- by 5th Central Pay Commission and A
Rs.20,800/- per month in respect of those Public Sector
Undertakings following IDA pattern). Qua appellant Banks, that
would be in respect of Scale-VII and above. Therefore, to carry
out promotions from Scale-I upwards upto Scale-VI, reservation
in promotion in favour of SC/ST employees has to be given. It B
would have the effect of allowing the writ petitions filed by the
respondents/unions partly with directions to the appellant Banks
to make provision for reservations while carrying out
promotjons from Sccile-1 to to Scale-II and upward upto Scale-
VI. c
37. In view of the above, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 320
of 2010 is disposed of with directions to the appellant Banks
to carry out the promotions by adopting the procedure
mentioned in this judgment.
D
38. In the peculiar facts of this case, we leave the parties
to bear their own costs.
Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals partly allowed and
contempt Petition disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Reservation"Sign in to search