Holding

Reservation for SC/ST employees must be applied to promotional Group ‘A’ posts even when filled by selection, and the bank must compute the backlog and grant the promotions with full benefits.

Summary

The Syndicate Bank Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Employees Association filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking enforcement of the constitutional reservation policy for SC/ST employees in promotional Group ‘A’ officer posts of Syndicate Bank. The bank, following a 1981 circular, argued that reservations applied only to direct recruitment and not to promotions by selection, contending it was bound by government instructions. The petitioners relied on earlier Home Ministry Office Memoranda (1970, 1974), a 1977 government directive, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Bihar State Harijan Kalyan Parishad v. Union of India (1985) which held that reservation also applies to promotions by selection for Group ‘A’ posts. The Court held that the reservation rule must be applied to promotional posts even when filled by selection, that the Government had erred in not extending the policy to the bank, and that the bank was not at fault for following unclear instructions. Consequently, the Court declared the bank’s earlier orders illegal, directed it to compute the backlog of unfilled reserved vacancies from 1 January 1978, and to grant the appropriate promotions with all salary and allowance benefits, granting the petitioners costs.

Issues considered

Whether the constitutional reservation policy for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes applies to promotions by selection in Group ‘A’ officer posts of a nationalised bank.
Whether the bank can be held liable for non‑implementation of reservation when it acted on government circulars that appeared to exclude such promotions.
Whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Bihar State Harijan Kalyan Parishad v. Union of India is binding on the present case.
Whether the Government’s letters and circulars constitute a clear directive on reservation in promotional posts.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16, s. Article 32

Subjects

reservationScheduled CastesScheduled Tribespromotion by selectionGroup A postsnationalised banksconstitutional lawequalityaffirmative actionArticle 14Article 16Article 32writ petition

Judgment

SYNDICATE BANK SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED
A
TRIBES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (REGD.), TIIROUGH
ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, SHRI K.S. BADLIA ANP ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA, TifROUGH ITS ADDIDONAL SECRE-
TARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT •JF
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS), BANKING DIVISION, JEEvAN B
DEEP BUILDING, PARLIAMENT ST. NEW DELHI-l.

AUGUST 10, 1990

[N.M. KASLIWAL AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.]
c
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14 and 16--Scheduled Casts
and Scheduled Tribes Employees-Syndicate Bank-Group 'A' posts
----.. ___ _ re5ervation for SC/ST Officers-Application of roster system-Direc-
tions by Court-Reservation policy in respect of SC/ST applicable to
such posts. D

The Syndicate . Bank Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
Employees Associated representing the interests of SC /ST employee~
throughout the country and three Assistant Managers of the Bank h1ne
filed this petition under article 32 of the constitution of India. Their
case is as follows: That Group 'A' Officers posts are class I posts with ;:;
Grade Scale I to Grade Scale VII. Criteria for promotion from Grade l
to the next Grade and onwards is regulated by a promotion policy dated
17.9.1985. Being a nationalised Bank all policy decisions are controlled
and governed by rules framed by the Central Government from time to
time. In order•~ implement the principles enshrined in the Constitution
of granting benefit of members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled i'
Tribes, the Government has evolved the policy of reservation for them
in the ratio of 5% and 7 1/2% respectively both at the time of initial
recruitment as well as at the time of promotions in all government
establishments. Though this policy was extended to the Banking
Industry in 1972 it remained restricted to appointments by direct
recruitment only. Later the Central Govt. by its D.O. letter dated G
31.12.1977 addressed to all the nationalised banks required them to
implement the reservation policy to promotional posts also. But the
respondent bank did not follow the policy within the Officers cadre on
the mistaken impression that the reservation in promotional cadres
through selection is barred. To this the petitioners submitted that the
Home Ministry's O.M. issued as early as on 26.3.1970 clearly provided H

713
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 1990) 3 S.C.R.

A reservations for SC & ST Officers' promotion within class I posts
including officers drawing a basic pay of Rs.2,000 per month or less. ~
This was later followed hy 0.M. dated 23.12.1974 issued by the depart-
ment of Personnel and Administrative Reforms to all the Ministries on
the same lines. However the Ministery of Finance, Department of
Economic affairs (Banking Division) issued a circular dated 30.5.1981
B
to all the nationalised hanks that there is no reservation for Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes in 'Promotion by Selection' within the
officers cadre; that the concessions to SC & ST employees mentioned in
Home Ministry's O.M. dated 26.3.1970 would be available to them in ~~
'Promotion by Selection' to posts within the officers cadre upto scale III
only and all the banks were required to implement instructions con-
e tained in Home Ministry's O.Ms. dated 26.3.1970 and 23.12.1974 with
such modifications as may.be necessary in the light of the circular dated
30.5.1981. The petitioners have contended that the Central Government
wrongly and erroneously interpreted these circulars in taking the view
that there was no reservation in the promotional posts within the offi-
D cers cadre. Finally they say that despite the unequivocal directions from
the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance contained in its letter dated
28.11.1986 to all the nationalised banks clarifying the position in regard
to reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for promo-
tions and the decision of this Court in Bihar State Harijan Kalyan
Parishad v. Union of India & Ors., which applied in all force to the case
of the petitioners, the Respondent Bank failed to make reservations
E within the officers cadre and continues to follow the selection method of
promotion which has lead to the tiling of this Petition. Allowing the
Writ Petition, this Court,

HELD: Even though the promotion posts are based on selection
method, the rule of reservation will supply to posts within group 'A' and
F the benefit of reservation policy to memebrs of SC and ST cannot be
denied on the ground that promotional posts are to be filled by method ....
of selection. Government of India committed a clear mistake in not
applying the principle already det·ided in Bihar State ffurijan Kalyan
Parishad's case to the Syndicate llank and in mt ~iving it a clear direc-
tion this r.,gard. [725G.H; 726A)
G
There can be no manner of doubt that the management of the
Syndicate Bank was not at fault as they were bound by the instructions
and policy laid down by the government of India and in the absrnce of a
clear direction from the Government it was not possible for them to
grant relief to the SC/ST employees of the bank. [726B)
H
EMPLOYEES ASSCN. v. U.0.1. [KASLIWAL, J] 715

Though Group 'A' posts were selection posts still the reservation
A
~policy is applicable to such posts and the respondents are directed to
compute the backlog of unfilled reserved quota available to SC /ST offic-
ers in the promotional posts with effect from 1.1.1978, the date of
introduction of reservation policy In the respondent bank. The respon-
dents are further directed to grant promotion to the SC /ST employees
of the Syndicate Bank with all consequential benefits of salary and B
allowances from the respective dates they should have been promoted,
_,._>-after applying the roster sys.tern in their favour. [726D-E]

Bihar State Harijan Kalyal Parishad v. Union of India & Ors ..
[1985] 2 sec 644, followed. .

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 847 of 1987. c
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).

Rajinder Sachar, K.R. Nagaraja, P.K. Rao, R.S. Hegde, V.A.
Babu and R. Rajappa for the Petitioners. D

K.N. Bhat, Vijay K. Verma and Ms. Madhu Moolchandani for
the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
KASLIW AL, J. ·This Petition under Article 32 of the Constitu-
tion of India has been filed by the Syndicate Bank Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes Employees Association representing the interest
of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Employees of the Syndicate
~ Bank all over India as well as by three other Assistant Managers of the
~- syndicate Bank. The case as set up in the petition is that Group 'A' F
0 fficers posts which are Class I posts contain different grades called
Junior Management Grade Scale l, Middle Management Grade Scale
II, Middle Management Grade Scale III and like this upto Grade Scale
VII. The criteria for promotions from Junior Management Grade
Scale I to Middle Management Grade Scale II and so on is based on a
promotion policy dated 17. 9. 1985 framed in this regard by the Bank. G
According to the petitioners the Syndicate Bank is a Nationalised
l. dBa~k. owneddand controlled by the Centr~I Government. All the policy
ec1s10ns an major internal adminsitrat10n are regulated and gover-
ned by and under Rules issued by !he Central Government from time
to time. In order to implement the principles enshrined in the Con-
stitution of India granting benefit to members belonging to Scheduled H
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 3 S.C.R.

Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the Central Government evolved the
A
concept ofquota system in the ratio of 15% and 7- 1/2% reservatiorr'-..
for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes respectively both at the
time of recruitment as well as at the time of promotions in all Govern-
ment organisations.

B It has been further alleged by the Petitioners that 14 leading
banks of the country were nationalised in the year 1969 and the Gov-
ernment ought to have extended the said policy of reservation in th.e -( _
banking sector also w.e.f. 1969. However, the reservation policy was _,_
extended to the banking industry initially in the year 1972, but that
remained restricted in respect of appointments made by direct recruit-
ment only. Later on by a D.O. Letter No. 10/24/74-SCT (B) dated
c 31.12.1977 the Central Government called upon the banks to imple-
ment the reservation policy in the matter of promotions posts also. In
the matter of promotions within the Officers cadre, the respondent
bank did not maintain any roster and did not follow the reservation
policy on an erroneous impression that the reservation in promotional
D cadres made throngh selection method is barred. The petitioners in
this regard have submitted that by an Officer Memorandum issued by
the Home Ministry as long back as on 26.3.1970 clearly provided reser-
vations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Officers for their
promotion within Class I posts and also in cases of Officers who drew a
basic pay of Rs.2,000 per month or less. Subsequently Department of "
E Personnel and Administrative Reforms also issued an O.M. No. 1/10/
74-Esstt (SCT) dated 23.12.1974 to all Ministries on the same lines as
contained in the earlier O.M. issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs
dated 26th March, 1970. The Government of India, Ministry of
Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) issued a
Circular dated 30th May, 1981 addressed to all the 26 Nationalised _...,_
F Banks existing at that t;,-:ne in the matter of reservation for Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes in respect of promotion. In the aforesaid '-
letter after making a reference to the Department's letter D.0. No.
10/24/75-SCT (B~ <lated 31.12.1977 Ministry of Home Affairs O.M.
No. 1/9/69-Esstt (SL'T) dated 26.3.1970 and Department of Personnel
and Administna. ,.e Reforms O.M. No. 1/10/74-Esstt (SCT) dated
G 23.12.74 it was stated that as per the above Government orders there is
no reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in 'Promo-
tion by Selection' within the Officers cadre. It was further stated in the
above circular that certain concessions and facilities are to be provided l
to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Officers in order to
improve their chances for selection to the Higher categories of posts in
H the Officers cadre in accordance with the orders contained in the
EMPLOYEES ASSCN. v. U.0.1. (KASLIWAL, J] 717

aforesaid 0 .Ms .of Ministry of Home Affairs. lt was further stated that
A
Jtt-has been decided that the concessions mentioned in Para 2 of Home
Ministry's Office Memorandum dated 26.3.1970 would be available to
the SC/ST Officers in Public sector Bank/Financial Institutions in
'Promotions by Selections' to posts within the Officers cadre upto
Scale Ill. All the banks were requested to implement the Government
instructions contained in the Officer Memorandums of Ministry of B
Home Affairs and Department of Personnel and Administrative
/eforms dated 26.3.1970 and 23.12.1974 respectively in the existing
- scheme of promotions with such procedural modifications as may be
necessary.

\ The case of the petitioners further is that the Central Govern-
ment wrongly and erroneously interpreted the above circulars and in c
taking the view that there was no reservation in the promotional posts
·-·within the officers cadre. In identical ci~cumstances the Ministry of
Steel and Mines in a letter dated April 8, 1982 addressed to the
Chairman of the Steel Authority of India Limited and letter dated
August 19, 1982 from the Steel Authority of India to the Chief Person- D
nel Manager Bokaro Steel Plant took the view that the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes personnel were not entitled to the benefit
of reservation in the matter of promotion of selection posts within
Group 'A'. The Bihar State Harijan Kalyan Parishad came before this
). Court by special leave challenging the above view taken by the Steel
Authority of India and the Union of India. This court in Bihar State E
Harijan Kalyan Parishad v. Union of India & Ors., [1985] 2 SCC 644
granted special leave. This Court held in the above case that a close
perusal of the directive and in particular paragraph 9 which dealt with
the concessions to employees of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
~ Tribes in promotions by selection method makes it abundantly clear
\ that the rule of reservation is also applicable to promotions by selec- F
~ tion to posts within Group 'A' which carry an ultimate salary of
Rs.2250 per month or less but the procedure is slightly different than
the case of other posts. It was further held in the above case that while
the rule of reservation applies to promotions by selection to posts
within group 'A' carrying a salary of Rs.2250 per month or less, 11 is
prescribed that only those officers belonging to the Scheduled Castes G
and Scheduled Tribes will be considered for promotion who are senior
to be within the zone of consideration. Thereafter a Select List
_i_depending upon the' number of vacancies would be drawn up in which
also those officers belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes would be included who are not considered unfit for promotion.
Their position in the Select List would be that assigned to them by·the H
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 3 S.C.R.

departmental Promotion Committee on the basis of the record of
A service. In other words their inclusion in the Select List would not give ~
them seniority, merely by virtue of their belonging to the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes over other officers placed above them in
the Select List made by Departmental Promotion Committee. The court
thus quashed the List dated April 8, 1982 and August 19, 1982 and directed
B the respondents to give effect to paragraph 9 of the Presidential directive
w.e.f. the date of the directive. Subsequently a Miscellaneous Petition No.
3637!86 was also filed in view of a misunderstanding of the above Judgment .. ...._,__
by the Authorities. The Court by order dated 2 Ist January, 1987 decid·
ing the above miscellaneous petition and made the following observations:

"We wish to clarify the position by stating that the
c Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes Officers who are
senior enough! '.o be within zone of consideration for
~romotion should be included in the Select List against the
vacancies available to the members of Scheduled Castes/
Scheduled Tribes according to the rosters, provided they
D are not considered unfit for promotion. Paragraph 2 of the
Presidential Directive should be strictly adhered to and
effect shall be given on the basis of scales of pay that
obtained prior to 1975 as mentioned in that paragraph. The
officers promoted as a consequence of our order will be
entitled to be paid salary and allowances from the respec-
E tive dates with effoct from which they should have been
promoted."

After the above decision of the Supreme Court which applied in
all force to the case of the present petitioners, a meeting took place
between the representatives of Syndicate Bank SC/ST employees
F Association and the Management of Syndicate Bank on 16th and 17th
April, 1986. In the aforesaid meeting the representatives of the man-
agement were fully convinced with the stand taken by the representa·
tives of Syndicate Bank SC and ST employees Association and after
agreeing in principle, they assured to take up the matter very strongly
again with the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Banking
G Division) for their approval. The petitioners thereafter made frantic
efforts and also submitted representations but no relief was granted to
the petitioners. It may be mentioned that Minister of State for
Finance, Government of India in his letter dated November 22, 1986
addressed to Shri Banwarilal Bairva Member of Parliament clearly
admitted as regards the reservation for SC/ST employees in lndian
H Overseas Bank that he had checked up his reply to the Lok Sabha
EMPLOYEES ASSCN. 1•. U.O.T [KASUWAL, J] 719

· starred question No. 342 answered on 8th August, 1986 and had also
A
_,)- got further clarifications from the Bank of the subject. It was further
stated in the above letter as follows:

"In respect of promotions, the bank was maintaining
rosters for only such category of posts to which the reserva-
tions were being applied by the bank. Since as per the B
Brochure on reservations for SCs/STs are available in
promotions within the officers cadre only if they are based
on seniority, and the bank considered the method of pro-
motions followed by it as one based on selection, it did not

-
consider maintenance of rosters necessary. During the
course of discussions between the officials of the bank and
Banking Division, it was revealed that the procedure c
followed by the bank for effecting promotions within the
--· officers cadre was the one falling within the categorisation
of seniority. The bank was immediat~ly advised to main-
tain rosters even for these promotions within the Officers
cadre and to provide for reservations for the SCs/STs. The D
bank has accepted its mistake and has already agreed to
provide for reservations and also to calcuate the backlog
I from 1978 when the reservations in promotions were first
introduced in the banks."

It may be also mentioned that the Government of India, Ministry E
of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) vide
letter No. F. No. 10/72/86-SCT (B) dated 28.11.1986 addressed to all
the nationalised banks also clarified the position in regard to reserva-
tions for SC/ST in promotions as under:

"It may be recalled that instructions were issued by the F
Government on 3.5.1980 advising bank to apply the provi-
sions of carry forward interchange, and lapsing of vacancies
in promotions also because of certain factors even though
strictly speaking these provisions are not applicable to
promotions by selection. In doing so, the posts filled by
selection method were specifically categorised as those G
where promotions are maae on the basis of a wntten exami-
.. nation tallowed by interview and/or on the basis of the
interview. On the other hand promotions based on the
assessment of the confidential reports of the officers were
classified as those based on seniority, subject to fitness.
The banks are, therefore, requested to review the method H
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 3 S.C.R.

of promotions followed by them and ensure that wherever
A
the rosters are to be maintained for determining the
number of vacancies reserved for SC/ST. This is done
scrupulously. The results of the review may be intimated to
the Government by 15th December, 1986. While intimat-
ing the information, the methodology adopted for effecting
B promotions from various cadres/scales should be specifi-
cally intimated".

The grievances of the petitioners is that despite the aforesaid
unequivocal directions from the Government, the bank failed to make

c
reservations for the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes employees.
The petitioners made representations to the respondents in this regard
in which it was reiterated that after decision of the Supreme Court in
Bihar State Harijan Kalyan Parishad v. Union oflndia & Ors., (supra)
-
and further order of clarification dated 21st January, 1987, the
petitioners were entitled to the same treatment. However the grie-
vances of the petitioners were not redressed and a view was taken by
D the authorities of the respondent/bank that there was no direction
from the Government of India for prescribing reservation policy

'
within officers cadre and that they were following the selection method
of rrnmotion in the case of Officers posts.

The Union of India filed a counter affidavit contesting the stand
E taken by the petitioners. So far as the bank is concerned they did not
file any separate reply in detail but took the stand that the Syndicate
Bank was a Nationalised bank and was under the Administrative con-
trol of the Government of India, Banking Division as such the bank is
guided in the discharge of its functions by any directions issued by
Banking Division, Ministry of Finance, Government of India from
•ime to time. Reference was made to Regulation 17(1) according to
which promotions to all grades of officers in the Bank were required to
!,e made in accordance with the policy laid down by the Board from
time to time having regard to the guidelines of the Government, if any.
In view of these circumstances it was stated in the counter affidavit
that they fully adopt all the submissions of fact and law made by the
G ( · 0vernment of India in its counter affidavit.

We have heard Mr. R. Sachar, Learned counsel for the petitio- •
. .•,rs, Mr. K.N. Bhat, for the Syndicate Bank and Mr. R. Rajappa, for
the Union of India. It may be stated at the outset that though the
Union of India in its reply had taken several grounds for contesting the
H present petition, but the Learned Counsel appearing for the Union of
EMPLOYEES ASSCN. '· U.0.1. [KASLIWAL, J] 721

India conceded before us and made a statement that he was not pres-
A
)-- sing the grounds taken in the counter affidavit filed by the Union of
India and they would abide by any directions given by this Hon'ble
Court. Mr. Bhat appearing on behalf of the Bank also submitted that
the Bank was bound by the decisions taken by the Government of
• India, Ministry of Finance Banking Division and the Bank was not at
fault in nof granting relief to the petitioners in as much as the Govern- B
ment of India was not clear in its policy of reservation. The attitude of
the Government of India is clearly discemable from its counter
- -~~- affiaavit filed in the present case. It was thus prayed that _this Hon'ble
Court should not hold the Bank responsible for not granting an
appropriate relief to the petitioners at its own end and for dragging the
petitioners unnecessarily in this litigation.
c
Mr. Sachar contended that the Ministry of State for Finance,
~--. Government of India in his letter dated November 22, 1986 addressed
to Shri Banwari Lal Bairva Member of Parliament made it clear that
during the course of discussions between the officials of the bank and
banking division regarding reservations for SC ST employees of the D
Indian Overseas Bank, it was revealed that the procedure followed by
the bank for effecting promotions, within the officers cadre was the
one falling within the categorisation of seniority. The bank was
immediately advised to maintain rosters even for these promotions
within the officers cadre and to provide for reservations for the SCs
STs. It was further mentioned in the above letter that the bank E
accepted its mistake and had already agreed to provide for reserva-
tions and also to calculate the backlog from 1978 when the reservations
in promotions were first. introduced fo the banks. In another letter
issued by the Banking division of the Ministry of Finance dated
~ 28.11.86 addressed to the Chairmen and Managing Directors of 20
nationalised banks it was mentioned as under: F
)...._ .

"It may be recalled that instructions were issued by the
Government on 3.5.80 advising banks to apply the provi-
sions of carry forward, interchange, and 'lapsing of vacan-
cies in promotions also because of certain factors even G
though strictly speaking these provisions are not applicable
to promotions by selection. In doing so, the posts filled by
selection method were specifically categorised as those
where promotions are made on the basis of a written
examination followed by interview and/or on the basis of
the interview. On the other hand promotions based on the H
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 3 S.C.R.

A assessment of the confidential reports of the officers were
classified as those based on seniority subject to fitness." -\

The banks were, therefore, requested to review the method of
promotions followed by them and ensure that wherever the rosters are
to be maintained for determining the number of vacancies reserved for
B SC/ST, this be done scrupulously. Mr. Sachar brought to our notice
the promotion policy in respect of officers of the Syndicate Bank
issued on 17.9.85 annexed with the writ petition as Annexure-L at
point number 3 follows: ·-,._ -

3. "The Promotion Policy identifies the following four
c factors as relevant for ascertaining the suitability of officers
for promotion from one.scale to another:

(a) Seniority for promotions upto SMGS IV

(b) Educational and Professional Qualifications for move-
D ment to Middle Management Grade Scale II only.

(c) Performance in the grade/scale.

(d) Potential as identified in the interview for movement
to Middle Management Grade Scale Ill and above".
E
It was thus submitted that from a reading of the two letters dated
22.11.86 and 28.11.86 together with the promotion policy issued by the
Syndicate Bank it was clear that for promotions from one scale to
another upto SMG IV was based on seniority and the Syndicate Bank
as such ought to have made promotions upto SMGS IV by giving
F benefit of reservation to SC/STs in the employment of the bank.

It was also contended by Mr. Sachar that upto 1979, the Syndicate
Bank made promotions of officers from one scale to another purely on
the basis of officers completing five years ot service as on 31st
December of previous year. No promotions were made in 1979, 1980
G and 1981. Since 1982 the promotions within the officers cadre were
being made on the basis of the following policy:

The minimum eligibility service and factor weightage shall be as ..L
follows:
H
EMPLOYEES ASSCN. v. U.0.J. [KASLIWAL, J] 723

A
.)--Movement Minimum Points Points Maximum Maximum
from eligibility for the points points
service as senio- educa- for for
on 3 lst rity ti on al perfor- potential
December & Profe- mance as identi-
of Previous ssional in the tied in the B
year qualifi- scale interview
cation
-.~

JMGSto 7 years in 60 10 30 Nil
MMGSII JMGSI

MMGSII 5 years in 50 30 20
c
toMMGS MMGSII
-- III

MMGSIII 5 years in 20 50 30
toSMGS MMGSIII D
IV

SMGSIV 3 years in 60 40
toTEGSV SMGSIV
:7
SMGS Vto 2 years in 60 40 E
TEGSVI SMGSV

TEGSVIto 3 years in 60 40
TEGSVII TEGSVI
/-
F
).. It was contended that from the above policy, it would be clear
that there was no written test and interview for promotions from Gr. I
to Gr. II and that 60% of the marks had been fixed for seniority. The
above policy further makes it clear that the seniority was considered a
predominant factor. The Government of India in its office memoran-
dum dated 27 .11. 72 had provided for reservation of 15% and 71/2 % for G
SC and ST candidates respectively, and the Government of India
Banking Division, had made the reservation policy applicable in the
J_ case of promotional posts also vide its D.O. Letter No. 10/24/74-SCT
(B) dated 31.12.77. Thus, there remains no ambiguity and the respon-
dent bank ought to have given benefit of reservation policy from 1st
January, 1978 to the members of SCs/STs in the cadre of officers. Mr. H
724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990) 3 S.C.R.

Sachar also submitted that as already mentioned above in the matter of
A employees of the Indian Overseas Bank rosters for calculating the \__
vacancies reserved for the SCs/STs had been applied in the case of
promotions within the officers cadre. It was further argued that the
principle of contemporanea ex positio 1.e. mterpreting the statute or
any other document by reference to the exposition it has received from
8 contemporary authority, has to be applied in case of employees of the
Syndicate Bank also while effecting promotions within the officers
cadre. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on Desh
Bandhu Gupta & Company & Others v. Delhi Stock Exchange Assn. ·"'- -
Ltd., [1979) 3 SCR 373.

C
We find no force in the above contention of Mr. Sachar. A
perusal of the promotion policy goes to show that for the purpose of
promotions in the cader of officers from JMGS to MMGS II and from
-
MMGS II to MMGS III and then upto scale VII, is not based on
seniority alone. Apart from the points for seniority other fac_tors based
on selective process were also important and as such it cannot be held
D that such promotions in the higher scale were based solely on senio-
rity. A perusal of the criteria laid down in the promotion policy
already extracted above clearly goes to show that apart from points for
seniority, points for educational and professional qualification, points
for performance in the scale and points for potential as identified in
the interview have also to be assessed while making appointment by ''<
E promotion. Merely because in the case of promotion from JMGS to
MMGS II points for seniority being mentioned as 60, it cannot be said
that such promotion in scale II may be considered as promotion
otherwise than by the method ot selection. In our view unless the
promotion is based on seniority alone and other factors based on mer.it
such as educational and professional qualifications, performance in the
F scale, written examination or interview have no material bearing it
cannot be considered as a promotion based on seniority. A perusal of
the policy shows that it is a hybrid system of promotion in which upon
scale IV points are given for seniority as well as for other factors also
which are based on a sort of selection process depending upon the
educational qualifications, performance in the scale and interview.
G While in the case of promotion from scale IV to scale VII there are no
points given for seniority at all. Thus taking in view the entire scheme
of promotion policy, we think that promotions in the officers cadre
from JMGS I to Scale VII shall be considered as promotions on selec-
tion basis. However the rule of reservation for SCs/STs will apply to
appointments made by promotion on selection basis, subject to a pro-
H cedure somewhat different from usual procedure adopted in filling up
.,
EMPLOYEES ASSCN. v. U.0.1. [KASLIWAL, J] 725

,;_posts reserved for SCs and STs on selection basis alone for appoint- A
ments to be made by direct recruitment.

·• Mr. Sachar then submitted that in case the above policy of pro-
motion is not considered as based on seniority, or otherwise than by
selection, the petitioners are to be governed by the principles already
laid down in Bihar State Harijan Kalyan Parishad v. Union of India & B
Ors., (supra). It was contended thafin identical case though relating to
-/ ·employees of Steel Authority of India Ltd., this Court interpreted
paragraph 9 of the Presidential directive in the case of promotions
within group 'A' which provided as under:

"In promotions by selection to posts within Group 'A'
which carry an uliimate salary of Rs.2250 per month, or c
less, the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe officers, who
are senior enough in the zone of consideration for promo-
tion so as to be within the number of vacancies for which
the Select List has to be drawn up, would be included in
that list provided they are not considered unfit for promo- D
tion. Their position in the select list would, howeer be the
same as assigned to them by the Departmental Promotion
Committee on the basis of th.eir 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

It was held in the above case that a close perusal of the directive
and in particular paragraph 9 which deals with "concessions to
employees of SC/ST in promotions by selection methods" makes it
abundantly clear that the rule of reservation is also applicable to pro-
motion by selection to posts within group 'A' which carry ultimate F
salary of Rs.2250 per month or less but that the procedure is slightly
different than in the case of other posts.

We find force in this alternative submission made by Mr. Sachar.
Even though the promotional posts are based on selection method, the
rule of reservation .will apply to posts within group 'A' and the benefit G
of reservation policy to members of SC and ST cannot be denied on.
,1 the ground that promotional posts are to be filled by method of selec-
tion. We find no distinction in the case of employees in the officers
group in JMGS I of the Bank from the officers falling in group 'A'
under the Steel Authority of India Ltd., for the purpose of applying
reservation policy. Government of India committed a clear mistake in H
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 3 S.C.R. •.
A not applying the pnnc1p1e already decided in Bihar State Harijan ~
Kalyan Parishad's case (supra) to the employees of the Syndicate Bank
and in not giving a clear direction in this regard to the manage.nent of
Syndicate Bank. There can be no manner of doubt that the manage-
ment of the Syndicate Bank was not at fault as they were bound by the
instructions and policy laid down by the Banking division of the Finance
B
Mmistry of the Government of India and in the absence of a clear
direction from the Government of India, it was not possible for them
to grant relief to the SC/ST employees of the bank. As already '""' -
mentioned above the Union of India had wrongly taken a contrary
stand in its counter filed to the present petition, and clearly in deroga-
tion to the principle already decided in the case of Bihar State Harijan
c Ka/yan Parishad, (supra) by this Court.

In the result this petition is allowed. The orders of the respon-
dents dated 15th June, 1987 and 25th June, 1987 are declared as
illegal. It is further decided that though group 'A' posts are selection
posts still the reservation policy is applicable to such posts and the
D respondents are directed to compute the backlog of unfilled reserved
quota available to the SC/ST officers in the promotional posts with
effect from 1.1.1978, the date of introduction of reservation policy in
the respondent bank. The respondents are further directed to grant
promotion to the SC/ST employees of the Syndicate Bank with all
consequential benefits of salary and allowances from the respective
E dates w.e.f. which they should have been promoted, after applying the
roster system in their favour. We grant three months' time to carry out
these directions.

The petitioners would be entitled to costs to be paid by the
respondent Union of India.

R.N.J. Petition allowed.