Holding

The High Court’s directions were ultra vires; the cut‑off date was valid, dereserved vacancies could be filled by open‑category candidates, and relief could not be granted without the promotees being parties.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined promotions in Marathwada Gramin Bank where a cut‑off date of 31‑Aug‑1989 was fixed for eligibility and certain posts were reserved for Scheduled Tribe (ST) candidates. No eligible ST candidates were found, so the bank dereserved those posts and promoted general‑category employees. Writ petitions challenged the cut‑off date and the promotion order, but the promotees and the Union/NABARD were not impleaded. The High Court upheld the cut‑off date but held the bank had not followed proper derervation procedure and ordered the open‑category appointees to vacate the posts. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the cut‑off date was reasonable, that the High Court could not consider the derervation issue which was not raised, and that it could not pass directions affecting persons who were not parties. Consequently, the High Court’s directions were set aside, the promotees’ appeals were allowed and the Association’s appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The validity of the cut‑off date fixed by the employer for promotion under Article 14.
Whether the High Court could entertain the derervation issue not raised in the writ petitions.
Whether the High Court could pass orders affecting promotees who were not impleaded as parties.
Whether, after derervation, the bank must re‑examine the availability of eligible ST candidates.
Whether the procedural requirements for derervation under the RRB Rules were complied with.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14

Subjects

promotioncut‑off datereservationderervationArticle 14procedural fairnessservice lawRegional Rural Bankseniority‑cum‑merit

Judgment

RAMRAO AND ORS. A
V.

ALL INDIA BACKWARD CLASS BANK EMPLOYEES
WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ORS.

JANUARY 5, .2004
B
[S.B. SINHA AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.]

Service law:

Regional Rural Banks (Appointment & Promotion of Officers and Other C
Employees) Rules, 1981-Promotion-Posts of Officers and Field Supervisors-
Fixation of cut-off date for eligibility-Reservation of some posrs of Field
Supervisors for Schedule Tribe-Interview of eligible candidates-Non-
availability of eligible ST candidates-Proposal for dereservarion approved
by aurhorities-Appoirm:ient of general category candidates tu the posts D
dereserved-Wril pelition challenging cut-off date-Another petition
challenging cut-off date fixed and also promotion order but promolees and
authoritles not impleaded as parties-High Court holding cul-off date valid
\ and that bank notfolloll'ed requisite procedure for dereservation, thus, direcling
it lo examine availabilily (Jf eligible ST candidates and Jo promote them in
·place of open catego0· appointed against posts deresen,ed-011 appeal, held: E
Dereservation policy 11ot·challe11ged-Promotees not impleaded as parties-
Dereseryation made and vacancies filed by open category candidates-IVhether
any eligible SC candidate available for promo/ion or not is question offact--
Hence, High Court erred in passing the directions~However, cut-off date
.fixed not hei11g a;·bitrary, it is valid.
F
f'rumotion--Cw-off date-Fixation for eligibility-When violative ·of
Article 14-Held: When cut-off date fixed by employer is arbitrary or
1111re(lsonabie, it is violative of Article 14-Further, classification resulting
therefi'om does 110/ create a class within a class or an artificial classification
violative of .4rticle 14-Also hardship faced by some persons or section of G
socielj• coming within the wrong side of cut-uff date, would no/ make it ultra
,·ires Article 14-Cunstitution of India, 1950-Article 14.

¥· Respondent-Marathwada Gramin Bank issued a Circular notifyin~
the eligibility criteria for internal promotion to the posts of Officers and
H
19
20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f2004] I S.C.R.

A Field Supervisors. Board of Directors of the Bank approved the proposal
to fill in 23 posts of Officers and 45 posts of Field Supervisors by
promotion. h fixed 31.8.1989 as the cut-off date for eligibility. The
promotions were to be governed under the Regional Rural Banks
(Appointment & Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1981.
B Further, it was made on the principle of seniority-cum-merit. Out of 45
posts of Field Supervisors, 13 including the backlog were proposed to be
reserved for Scheduled Tribe (ST) Category. Respondent No.1-
Association filed writ petition challenging the cut-off date of 31.8.1989. ,,.
High Court passed interim order that the appointment would be subject
to the result of writ petition. Meanwhile, interview was held of eligible
C candidates. Furthermore, as no eligible ST candidate was available for
promotion in the vacancies reserved for ST category, resolution was passed
for dereserving the vacancies reserved for ST candidates. Ministry of
Finance, Government of India, Sponsor Bank and NA BARD approved the
proposal for dereservation. Pursuant to this, open category candidates
were promoted in the dereserved posts. One A also filed writ petition
D challenging the cut-off date and the order of promotion. However, in these
writ petitions, neither the appellant-promotees nor Union of India or
NABARD were impleaded as parties. High Court held that the cut-off date
fixed was valid; and that the Bank did not follow the requisite procedure l
for dereservation, therefore, it directed the bank to examine the caste claim
E of all candidates belonging to ST category and those found eligible to be
promoted and the open category candidates appointed against such posts
to vacate the same. Hence the present appeals.

Appellants-Promotees contended that the High Court erred in
passing the impugned judgment as in the writ petitions neither they were
F impleaded as parties nor the order of dereservation was in question.

Association contended that although they did not challenge the order
of promotion, the same was done by one A, thus, High Court rightly passed
the im1rngncd judgment; that since 29 vacancies existed in the Bank, the
appellants as also "the ST Candidates <'an he accommodated against the
G said posts; and that the cut-off date fixed by the Bank was arhitrary and
is liable to be declared as such by the High Court.

Bank contended that the requisite procedures for dereservation had
been complied with and High Court erred in passing the impugned
H judgment; and that in view of the Bank's policy decision regarding
)

RAM RAO 1·.AU. INDIA BACKWARD CLASS BANK EMP. WEL. ASSON. 2J
implementation of manpower planning norms which is against adding A
manpower in officer cadre, and accumulated losses of the bank, further
appointment cannot be made adjusting the 'Promotees' and the eligible
members of the Association.

Allowing the appeals of the promotees and dismissing appeal of the
Association, the Court B
HELD: 1.1. In the absence of any specific challenge to the
"< dereservation policy adopted by the Bank, High Court could not have gone
into that question. It is true that the High Court is entitled to take into
cdnsideration the subsequent events, but the same can only be a relevant
factor for the purpose of moulding the reliefs. But while moulding such C
reliefs, the High Court could not have considered grant ofa reliefwherefor
no factual foundation was laid in the pleadings of the parties. f30-F-GJ

1.2. Order of promotion was challenged in Writ Petition filed by A.
Furthermore, in the writ petition filed by A and the Association, the order D
of dereservation was not challenged and also neither the promotees, nor
the Union of India or NABARD were impleaded as parties. An order issued
against a person without impleading him as a party and, thus, without
giving him an opportunity of hearing is bad in law. Appellants-
promotees, in view of the impugned direction that the orders of promotion
effected in their favour be withdrawn, were necessary parties. Therefore, E
in their absence as parties, the writ petition could not have been effectively
adjudicated upon and it was not permissible for the High Court to issue
such directions. 131-B-DI

1.3. Once dereservation is made, the vacancies became available for
being filled up by general category candidates and the respondent Bank F
was not required to re-examine the question of availability of ST
candidates for appointment on dereserved vacancies. Therefore, the view
taken by the High Court that even after dereservation was made, the Bank
was required to re-examine the availability of ST candidates on the
derescrved vacancies, was not correct when it found that the cut-off date G
being 31.8.1989 was correctly fixed by the Bank. 131-G, H; 32-AI

1.4. No factual foundation was laid down in the writ petition before
High Court as to whether the Bank complied with the requirement of
Clause 7.7 of the procedure providing for exchange of reservation between
SC/ST and vice-versa. The question as to whether any eligible scheduled H
22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] I S.C.R.

A caste candidate was available for promotion to the post of Officer or not
is essentially a question of fact. Therefore, it was not open to the High
Court to advert to the same. [30-G-Hf

1.5. High Court in its impugned judgment arrived at a finding of
fact that the Association failed to prove any malice on the part of the
B authorities of the Bank in fixing the cut-off date. A plea of malice must
be specifically pleaded and proved which has not been complied with by
the writ petitioners. (34-DI

J.6. The submission that both the appellants and the ST candidates
C can be adjusted in view of the fact that 29 posts are lying vacant is also
not a matter which can be decided by this Court for the first time in these
appeals. Bank had categorically stated that having regard to its policy
decision of implementation of manpower planning norms which is against
adding manpower in officer cadre; and also because of the accumulated
losses of the bank, they are not in a position to make any further
D promotions to the post of 'officers'. Therefore, this Court cannot issue any
directions upon the Bank to change its policy 'decision and accommodate
the ST candidates in violation of its own policy decision. It is for the Bank,
the Sponsor Bank as also NABARD to take an appropriate decision in the f
matter. [34..H; 35-A-B[

E 2. 1. For the purpose of effecting promotion, the employer is required
to fix a date for the purpose of effecting promotion. Unless the cut-off date
so fixed is held to be arbitrary or unreasonable, the same cannot be s~t
aside as offending Article 14 of the Constitution. In the instant case, the
cut off date so fixed having regard to the directions contained by the
F National Industrial Tribunal which had been given a retrospective effect
cannot be said to be arbitrary, irrational whimsical or capricious.
(32-B-Cj

2.2. If a cut-off date can be fixed and those who fall within the
purview thereof would form a separate class. Such a classification has a
G reasonable nexus with the object which the decision of the Bank to promote
its employ1!e seeks to achieve. Such classifications would neither fall within
the category of creating a class within a class or an artificial classification
so as to offend Article 14 of the Constitution. Further, a question may arise
as to why a· person would suffer only because he comes within the wrong
side of the cut-off date but, the fact that some persons or a section of society
H would face hardship, by itself cannot be a ground for holding that the cut-
RAMRAO v.ALL INDIA BACKWARD CLASS BANK EMP. WEL. ASSON. [SINHA, J.] 23

off date so fi"ed is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. A
(32-G-H; 33-A-BI

University Grants Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary and Ors., (1996)
10 SCC 536; State of W.B. v. Monotosh Roy and Anr.. (1999) 2 SCC 71 and
Vice Chairman & Managing Director, A.P.S.l.D.C: Ltd. and Anr. v. R.
Varaprasad and Ors.. (2003) 4 Supreme 245, referred to. B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4593-4594
of 2002.

From the Judgment and Order dated I 0.8.200 I of the Bombay High
Court at Aurangabad in W.P. Nos. 255 and 1551 of 1990. C
WITH
C.A. Nos. 4595-96 and 4597 of 2002.

V.N. Ganpule, R.S. Hegde, Ms. Savitri Pandey, Dinesh P, P.P. Singh,
B.K. Pal, Sapam Biswajit Meite, Ashok Kumar Singh· and Mrs. Rachana D
Joshi lssar for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. Civil Appeal Nos. 4593-4594 of2002 and 4595-4596
of 2002 have been filed by the appellants thereof (hereinafter referred to as
"Promotees") upon obtaining permission to file the Special Leave applications E
against the judgment and order dated I 0.8.200 I passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 255/1990 .
•
Writ Petition No. 1551/1990 has been filed by All India Backward Class
Bank Employees Welfare Association (hereinafter referred to as "Association")
which is the respondent No. I in the aforementioned appeals and the appellant F
in Civil Appeal No. 4597/2002.

FACTS:

The Promotees are employees of Marathwada Gram in Bank (hereinafter
referred to as "Bank").
G
A circular bearing No. Ho/ST/Cir NO. 35/88 (159) dated 8.11.1988
was issued by the Respondent Bank notifying the eligibility criteria for internal·
promotion to the posts of Officers and Field Supervisors. The Board of
Directors of the Bank passed a resolution dated I 0.11.1989 approving the
proposal to fill in 23 posts of Officers and 45 posts of Field Supervisors by
promotion fixing the cut off date for eligibility therefor as on 31.8.1989. The H
24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) I S.C.R.

A promotions were to be made on application of the principle of seniority-cum-
merit. Out of 45 posts of Field Supervisors, 13 including the backlog were
proposed to be reserved for Scheduled Tribe Category. On or about 27. I 1.1989
the Respondent Bank issued another circular bearing No. HO/ST/Gr No. 43/
89 notifying the vacancies. ·

B Writ Petition No. 255/1990 was filed by the respondent No. I herein
questioning the cut off date of 31.8.1989 fixed by the Bank for deciding the
eligibility of its employees for promotion to the posts of Field Supervisors
and Officers.

C On 2.2. I 990, the High Court passed an interim order in the said Writ
Petition in the following terms:

"Notice before admission returnable within four weeks. Interim relief
in terms of prayer clause (C) in the meanwhile".

D Thereafter the said interim order dated 2.2.1990 was modified by the
High Court in tem1s of an order dated 9.4.1990 directing that the appointment
made shall be subject to the result of the writ petition.

In the meantime, interview of eligible candidates was held between
I
I0.2.1990 to 15.2.1990.
E
It is contended that no eligible Scheduled Tribe candidate was available
for promotion in the vacancies reserved for Scheduled Tribe category in the
Post ofField Supervisor as on the cut off date of 31.8.1989 or even thereafter
including for filling up the backlog and, thus, the Board of Directors passed
F a resolution on or about I7.4.1990 for dereserving the vacancies which were
reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates. The said proposal was also forwarded
to the Ministry of Finance, Government of India as well as to the Sponsor
Bank and NABARD for requisite permission stating that there was no eligible •
Scheduled Tribe candidate for appointment on the said I3 reserved posts.

G The Ministry of Finance, Government of India approved the proposal
for dereservation of 13 vacancies which were earlier reserved for the Scheduled
Tribe candidates. NABARD also granted its permission for dereservation of
said 13 vacancies.

The contention of the appellants is that by reason of such dereservation
H
RAM RAO l',ALL INDIA BACKWARD CLASS BANK EMP, WEL ASSON, [SINHA, J,) 25

the said vacancies became available for being filled up by the candidates A
belonging to the general category, During pendency of the aforementioned
writ petition, interview was held in between 10.2.1990 and 15.2.1990, The
Association tiled the writ petition marked as W.P, 255 of 1990, as noticed
hereinbefore, only questioning the cut-off date, Another writ petition was
tiled by one Shri Ashok which was marked as writ petition No. 1551 of 1990 B
questioning the cut-off date as also the order of proinotion. However, in both
the writ petitions, neither the promotees nor the Union of India or NABARD
were impleaded as parties. In the said writ petitions the order of dereservation
was also not questioned.

HIGH COURT JUDGMENT : c
By reason of the impugned judgment, a Division Bench of the High
Court held that the cut-off date fixed by the respondent Bank was valid. It
further held that the Bank did not have any questionable motive in fixing the
said cut-off date and the explanation given by it being a plausible one could
not be rejected. The contention raised by the Association to the effect that the D
saia circular dated 8, 11.1988 was issued for lhe purpose of frustrating the
reservation policy did not find favour with the High Court, as upon a perusal
of the select panel, it became explicit that the candidates from the SC categories
had been appointed. The High Court further observed that even if in place
and stead of 31.12.1989 being the cut-off date the same was to be taken as E
31.3, I 990, nothing had been brought on records to show that any Scheduled
Tribe candidate would have become eligible.

The High Court fui1her opined that the Scheduled Tribe candidates
having been appointed sometimes in the year 1994 onwards, the requirements
of six years se:vice as set out in the rules could not have been waived by the F
Bank by its impugned resolution, It, however, came to the conclusion that
reservation policy being in issue in the said writ petition, the challenges
raised therein should 1101 limit the scope thereof. Keeping in view the
subsequent action taken by the Bank including the issue of dereservation and
, appointment of open category candidates to the respective posts' pursuant to
the decision of dei·eservation, the High Court proceeded to analyse the G
requirements for notifying derescrvation as contained in the Brochure and
heid that the Bank did not follow the requisite procedure to undertake a fresh
survey regarding the availability of the eligible candidates from the respective
categories even though such candidates were not available on the cut-off
date, It was observed :
H
26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f2004] I S.C.R.

A "We, therefore, direct the bank to examine the availability of candidates
belonging to ST category for promotion to the post of Field Supe1visor
and Officer who became eligible from 18.4.1990 to 17.4.1991 as well
as during the next two years i.e. up to 17.4.1993 thereby making a
period of 3 years for filling in the backlog of such reserved category
candidates, by examining the caste claims of all such candidates
B including their service record so as to fulfil the principle of seniority-
cum-merit. This shall be done within a period of two months from
today and those scheduled tribe category candidates who are found to
be eligible, shall be given promotion to the post of Field Supervisor
and/ or officer, as the case may be, and the open category candidates
c who have been appointed against such posts shall vacate these posts
forthwith. We clarify that while withdrawing the appointments made
in favour of the open category candidates against reserved posts, the
candjdates who joined last would go first and the bank shall not be
entitled to recover any amount from them as they have already worked
in the higher posts. Their pay fixation in the lower posts shall be done
D as per the rules. The reserved category candidates, who shall be so
promoted, shall not be entitled to claim arrears in salary, but for the
purpose of seniority in the respective grades, the date of promotion
shall be counted.
Promotees have filed appeals upon obtaining leave of this Court
E questioning the directions issued by the High Court. Association's appeal is
against that part of the judgment wherein 'cut-off date fixed by the Bank has
been found to be valid.
SUBMISSIONS :
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Promotees contended
F
that the High Court committed a manifest error in passing the impugned
judgment as in the writ petitions neither they were impleaded as pa11ies nor
the order of dereservation was in question.
Besides, supporti_ng the impugned judgment, the contention of the
G A;sociation, on the other hand, is that keeping in view the fact that 29
vacancies are existing in the Bank as the concerned employees have either
resigned, dismissed or died, the appellants as also the Scheduled Tribe
Candidates can be accommodated against the said posts. It was urged that
although the Association itself did not question the order of promotion, the
same was done by Ashok in his writ petition and, thus, the High Court cannot
H be said to have committed an error in passing the impugned judgment.
RAM RAO v.ALL INDIA BACKWARD CLASS BANK EMP. WEL. ASSON. [SINHA, J J 27

Furthermore, 13 other writ petitions were filed by other employees of the A
Bank questioning the appointment of the appellants herein which had also
been disposed of relying on or on the basis of the impugned judgment.

It was argu.ed that the Bank was not correct in raising the contention
before the High Court that no eligible Scheduled Tribe candidate was available
for promotion to the posts of officers as on 31st December, 1985 as two B
persons names of whom appeared at SI. Nos. 67 and 87 of the Seniority List
were members of Scheduled Tribe. It has been contended that as on today as
•-;-
many as 13 Scheduled Tribe candidates are available for promotion to the
post of Officers and, thus, this Court may direct the respondent Bank to
adjust the appellants as also the Scheduled Tribe candidates against the existing
vacancies. Mr. Ganpule, would further submit that the cut-off date fixed by c
the Bank was arbitrary and, therefore, the same was liable to be declared as
such by the High Court.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank, however, has
drawn our attention to the counter affidavit filed in Civil Appeal No. 4597 D
of 2002 wherein inter a/ia it has been averred:

"iv) That the document at the Serial No. 5 (under the heading "Extract
\ of Seniority List as on 31.12.1985") of the additional documents
sought to be brought on record by the petitioners is also grossly
misleading as it suppresses the material fact known to the petitioners E
that against the names of persons at Serial Nos. 52 and 67 the said
list erroneously mentioned 'ST' which error was subsequently
corrected after due notice to the concerned persons Shri Pendalwar
Shivaji Ramanna and Shri Tehra Kiransinh Gangusingh. Accordingly,
these persons were called for the interview for promotion in the year
1990 as General Category candidates." F

It was urged that all the requisite procedures for dereservation had been
complied with and in that view of the matter the High Court committed a
ma11ifest error in passing the impugned judgment.

The learned counsel would further submit that keeping in view the G
present policy decision of the Bank, it is not possible to make any fu1ther
appointment adjusting the 'Promotees' and the eligible members of the
~ Association and in this behalf our attention has been drawn to the following
statements made in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit:
H
28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] I S.C.R.

A "3(i) In the instant Special Leave Petition it is erroneously pleaded
that the ST category employees can be considered for promotions to
cadre of officers without disturbing status of the petitioner as there
are vacancies in the officers' cadre. In this regard, it is respectfully
submitted that although, it is true that due to one or the other reasons
certain officers ceased to work with the respondent bank, but according
B to the Man Power Norms in Regional Rural Banks' introduced by the
Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic
Affairs (Banking Division), New Delhi, vide its Order/ Memorandum,
F.No. 3/(24)/99 RRB dated 22.1.2001 and adopted by the Board of
Directors of the respondent Bank, in the meeting dated 18.5.2001,
c there is no shortfall in manpower in the officer grade, of the respondent
Bank and, on the contrary, there exists an excess manpower in the
said grade.

(ii) It further needs to be kindly considered by your Lordships that
the accumulated losses of the respondent bank are to the tune of Rs.
D 53.47 cores as on 31.3.2001. In view of the implementation of
manpower planning norms and in view of the accumulated losses of
the respondent Bank, it is not possible for the respondent Bank to add
manpower in officer cadre, without getting the corresponding number
of posts vacated, inter a/ia, by reversion of the petitioner." '
E GRANT OF PROMOTIONS :
The respondent Bank is a Regional Rural Bank established under the
Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 of which the Bank of Maharashtra is the
sponsor Bank. It appears th.at in terms of an award issued by the National
F Industrial Tribunal in 1991 which was given retrospective effect from 1.9.1987,
23 vacancies in officers cadre (Junior Management-I) and 45 vacancies in
Field Supervisors cadre (which have since been merged in the officers' cadre)
were identified for being filled in_ by internal promotion from amongst the
eligible Field Supervisors and clerks working in the Bank. It is also not in
dispute that promotion to the said posts ·are governed under the Regional
G Rural Banks (Appointment & Promotion of Officers and other Employees)
Rules 1981 (The Rules).

It is furthermore not in dispute that for the purpose of effecting
promotions to the post of Field Supervisor or Officer, the following conditions
laid down in the Rules were required to be taken into consideration:
H
RAMRAO v.ALL INDIA BACKWARD CLASS BANK EMP. WEL. ASSON. [SINHA, J.] 29

"5(b )(ii) For Promotion: A
Confirmed Senior Clerk-cum-Cashier with minimum of four years
service as Senior Clerk-cum-Cashier.

OR

(b) Six years service either as confirmed Junior Clerk-cum-Cashier or
B
Junior Clerk-cum-Typist or Stenographer or Ster.o Typist or as a
confirmed Senior or Juriior Clerk-cum-Cashier, as the case may be.
For the first six years after the year Bank, post of Field Supervisor
will be filled only by direct recruitment and the promotion quota of
these posts will be notionally carried forward and made good by C
promotions in the subsequent years. From the year in which the back
log, if any, in the promotion quota is wiped out, the stipulated quota
of fifty percent recruitment from the open market and fifty percent by
promotion will be adhered to.

6(b)(ii) For Promotions: D
Confirmed Field Supervisor with a minimum of five years service as
' Field Supervisor. The above condition of minimum service is relaxable

' as stated below:

(i) Regional Rural Banks which have not completed three years of E
existence after their year of establishment will fill up all vacancies in
the officer cadre only by direct recruitment.

(ii) Regional rural banks which have completed three years of existence
after the year of their establishment but have not completed five
years, may, but only with prior approval of National Bank, consider F
for promotion confirmed Field Supervisors having a minimum of
three years experience in that capacity. However, if even after this
relaxation suitable candidates are not available, the vacancies to be
filled by direct recruitment and the vacancies so filled will be notionally
carried forward to the subsequent years till the back log, if any, is
cleared. Thereafter, the stipulated quota of fifty per cent from open G
ma,rket and fifty per cent by promotion will be adhered to".

.. The candidates eligible for promotion were subjected to an interview
by the Selection Committee constituted in terms of Rule IO(l)(b) of the
Rules pursuant whereto and in furtherance whereof the appointments in H
30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) I S.C.R.

A questions were made.
DERESERVATION:

It appears that the.respondent Bank initially reserved 8 posts of 'officers'
for the Scheduled Tribe Candidates and 13 thereof for the posts of
B 'Supervisors'. Chapter Vil of the brochure admittedly laid down the procedure
for dereservation. Clause 7.6 provides for carry forward of reservations whereas
Clause 7. 7 deals with exchange of reservation between SC/ST and vice-
versa. Clause 7. 9 provides for reservation and carry forwarding of a single
vacancy reserved for scheduled caste or scheduled tribe candidates which
C may be filled up by a general candidate, as the case may be.

As regard difficulty in carrying out the policy of reservation it appears
that the Central Government by a letter dated 19th September, 1989 advised
the respondent Bank to approach the Sponsor Bank for guidance and only in
the event a specific issue arises, a reference was required to be made to the
D Government through the Sponsor Bank. The Bank of Maharashtra admittedly
having been approached to give approval for the proposal of dereservation by
the respondent Bank having regard to non-availability of any Scheduled Tribe
candidate for promotion by a letter dated 18th August, 1990 granted such f
permission and forwarded the proposal for final approval of the Government
of India. The NABARD also granted approval to the proposal ofdereservation
E by its letter dated 31st August, 1990. As indicated herein before, the Central
Government had also approved the same.

EFFECT OF ABSENCE OF DERESERVATION AS AN ISSUE:

Order of dereservation was admittedly not in issue before the High
F Court. In the aforementioned fact situation, we are of the opinion that the
High Court in absence of any specific challenge to the dereservation policy
adopted by the Bank could not have gone into the said question. It is true that
the High Court is entitled to take into consideration the subsequent events,
but the same can only be a relevant factor for the purpose of moulding the
G reliefs. But while moulding such reliefs, the High Court could neither have
considered grant of a relief wherefor no factual foundation existed was laid
in the pleadings of the parties.

It has been accepted at the Bar that no factual foundation was laid
down in the writ petition before the High Court as to whether the Bank
H complied the requirement of Clause 7.7 of the procedure providing for

I
J-
RAMRAO 1·.ALL INDIA BACKWARD CLASS BANK EMP. WEL. ASSON. [SINHA, J] 3 J

exchange of reservation between SC/ST and vice-versa. The question as to A
whether any eligible scheduled caste candidate was available for promotion
to the post of Officer or not is essentially a question of fact. It was, thus, not
open to the High Court to advert to the said question.

EFFECT OF ABSENCE OF THE APPELLANTS AS PARTIES :
B
It is true that the order of promotion was in question in Writ Petition
No. I 551 of 1990 at the instance of one Ashok but even in the said writ
't petition the Promotees were not impleaded as parties. As in the case of the
Association, even in the writ petition filed by Ashok, the order of dereservation
passed by Union of India or NABARD or the Sponsor Bank had not been
questioned. Admittedly, Union of India or NABARD were not parties in the c
said writ petitions. An order issued against a person without impleading him
as a party and, thus, without giving him an opportunity of hearing must be
held to be bad in law. The appellants herein, keeping in view the fact that by
reason of the impugned direction the orders of promotion effected in their
favour had been directed to be withdrawn indisputably were necessary parties. D

,, In their absence, therefore, the writ petition could not have been effectively
adjudicated upon. In absence of the 'Promotees' as parties, therefore, it was
not permissible for the High Court to issue the directions by reason of the
impugned judgment.

ANALYSIS: E
It is not the contention of the Association that procedures for effecting
promotion had not been followed. The promotees were, admittedly eligible
for promotion and they had, thus, legally been promoted. The only question
which was raised related to compliance on the part of the Bank as regard the
procedure of dereservation. The High Court, therefore, was required to consider F
,, the said question only in the event, the factual foundation therefor had been
-\' laid down in the writ petition. The Association did not file even any
supplementary affidavit or an application for amendment of the writ petition
praying for a relief as regard quashing of the order of dereservation or bringing
the appellants herein as parties thereto in the writ petition. In absence of any G
challenge to the order of dereservation and in absence of the Promotees
having been impleaded as parties, the impugned directions could not have
been issued by the High Court, more so when the appellants herein had not
'1 been given an opportunity of being heard. Once dereservation is m'ade, the
vacancies became available for being filled up by general category candidates
and, thus, therefor the respondent Bank was not required to re-examine the H
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] I S.C.R.

A question of availability of the Scheduled Tribe candidates· for appointment on
dereserved vacancies. The view taken by the High Court that even after
dereservation was made, the Bank was required to re-examine the availability
of ST candidates on the dereserved vacancies, was, therefore, not correct
particularly when the High Court itself found that the cut off date being
B 31.8.1989 was correctly fixed by the Bank.

CUT OFF DATE :

It is now well-settled that for the purpose of effecting promotion, the
employer is required to fix a date for the purpose of effecting promotion and,
thus, unless cut off date so fixed is held to be arbitrary or unreasonable, the
C same cannot be set aside as offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
In the instant case, the cut off date so fixed having regard to the directions
contained by the National Industrial Tribunal which had been i;iven a
retrospective effect cannot be said to be arbitrary, irrational, whimsical or
capricious.
D
The learned counsel could not point out as to how the said date can be
said to be arbitrary and, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
Ind~. f
It is not in dispute that a cut-off date can be provided in terms of the
E provisions of the statute or executive order. In Universily Grams Commission
v. Sadhana Chaudhary and Ors., [ 1996] I0 SCC 536. It has been observed:

"21 It is sen led law that the choice of a date as a basis for classification
.. _

cannot always be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is
forthcoming for the choice unless it is shown to be capricious or
F whimsical in the circumstances. When it is seen that a line or a point
there must be and there is no mathematical or logical way of fixing
it precisely, the decision of the legislature or its delegate must be
accepted unless it can be said that it is very wide off the reasonable
mark. (See: Union of India v. Parameswaran Maleh Works, [I 9_75]
I SCC 305: [1975] 2 SCR 573 at p. 579 and Sushma Sharma (Dr)
G v. Sra1e ofRajasthan, [1985) Supp SCC 45: [1985) SCC (L&S) 565:
[1985] 3 SCR 243 at p. 269.

If a cut-off date can be fixed, indisputably those who fall within the
purview thereof would form a separate class. Such a classification has a
H reasonable nexus with the object which the decision of the Bank to promote
RAMRAO 1·.ALL INDIA RACK WARD CLASS IlANK EMP. WEL. ASSON. [SINHA. J.) 33

~ its employee seeks to achieve. Such classifications would neither fall within A
the category of creating a class within a class or an artificial classification so
as to offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Whenever such a cut-off date is fixed, a question may arise as to why
a person would suffer only because he comes within the wrong side of the
cut-off date but, the fact that some persons or a section of society would face B
hardship, by itself cannot be a ground for holding that the cut-off date so
fixed is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.
'..j
'
In State of W.B. v. Monotosh Roy and Anr., (1999] 2 SCC 71, it was
held : -
c
"13. In All India Resen•e Bank Retired Officers' Association v. Union
of India, [I992] Supp. I sec 664: [I992] sec (L&S) 5I7: (I992)
19 ATC 856 a Bench of this Court distinguished the judgment in
Nakara, (1983] I SCC 305 : [I983] SCC (L&S) 145 and pointed out
that it is for the Government to fix a cut-off date in the case of
introducing a new pension scheme. The Court negatived the claim of
D
the persons who had retired prior to the cut-off date and had collected
their retiral benefits from the employer. A similar view was taken in
~ Union of India v. P.N. Menon, [I 994] 4 SCC 68 : [I 994] SCC (L&S)
860: (I994) 27 ATC 5I5. In State of Rajasthan v. Amrit Lal Gandhi,
[1997] 2 sec 342: (1997] sec (L&S) 512: JT (1997) 1 sc 421 the E
ruling in P.N. Menon case (supra) was followed and it was reiterated
that in matters of revising the pensionary benefits and even in. respect
of revision of scales of pay, a cut-off date on some rational or
reasonable basis has to be fixed for extending the benefits.

14. In State of U.P. V. Jogendra Singh, (1998] I sec 449 : (1998] F
SCC (L&S) 300 a Division Bench of this Court held that liberalized
provisions introduced after an employee's retirement with regard to
~
retiral benefits cannot be availed of by such an employee. In that case
the employee retired voluntarily on 12-4-1976. Later on, the statutory
rules were amended by Notification dated 18-11-1976 granting benefit
G
of additional qualifying service in case of voluntary retirement. The
Court held that the employee was not entitled to get the benefit of the
liberalized provision which came into existence after his retirement.
A similar ruling was rendered in V. Kas111ri v. Managing Director,
State Bank of India, (1998) 8 SCC 30 : JT (1998) 7 SC 147.
J-1
34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] I S.C.R.

A 15. The present case will be governed squarely by the last two rulings
,_,
referred to above. We have no doubt whatever that the first respondent
is not entitled to the relief prayed for by him in the writ petition."

In Vice Chairman & Managing Director, A.l'.S.l.D.C. ltd. and Anr. v.
R. Varaprasad and Ors., 2003 (4) Supreme 245 in relation to 'cut off' date
B fixed for the purpose of implementation of Voluntary Retirement Scheme, it
was said :

" ... The employee may continue in service in the interregnum by virtue
of clause (i) but that cannot alter the date on which the benefits that
were due to an employee under the YRS to be calculated. Clause (c)
c itself indicates that any increase in salary after the cut off point/date
cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculation of
payments to which an employee is entitled under the YRS."

The High Court in its impugned judgment has arrived at a finding of
fact that the Association had failed to prove any malice on the part of the
D authorities of the Bank in fixing the cut off date. A plea of malice as is well-
known must be specifically pleaded and proved. Even such a requirement has
not been complied with by the writ petitioners.

CONCLUSION :
E An upshot of the above discussions is that the High Court could not
have issued the impugned directions in absence of the promotees having not
been impleaded as parties. Furthermore, the order of dereservation was .not
under challenge.

F In these appeals, this Court is not concerned with the effect of the
orders passed by the High comt in the writ petitions filed by 13 Scheduled
Tribe candidates. We must, however, notice that it has been stated at the Bar
that the said writ petitions had been disposed of only relying on or on the
basis of the impugned judgment. What would be the effect of the orders
passed in the said writ petitions is not a matter which we have been called
G upon to determine. Suffice it, however, to point out that in relation to the said
orders also the requisite consequences of setting aside the judgment of the
High Court must ensue and it would be open to the High Court to pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law in appropriate proceedings. ..,

Submission of Mr. Ganpule to the effect that both the appellants and
H the Scheduled Tribe candidates can be adjusted in view of the fact that 29
RAM RAO >'.ALL INDIA BACKWARD CLASS BANK EMP. WEL. ASSON. [SINHA, l.] JS

posts are lying vacant is also not a matter which can be decided by this Court A
for the fir~t time in these appeals. As noticed hereinbefore, the Bank had
categorically stated that having regard to the changed situation, they are not
in a position to make any further promotions to the post of 'officers'. This
Court, in the· aforementioned situation, cannot, thus, issue any directions
upon the Bank to change its policy decision and accommodate the Scheduled
Tribe candidates in violation of its own policy decision. It is for the Bank, B
the Sponsor Bank as also NABARD to take an appropriate decision in this
matter.

For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgments of the High
Court cannot be sustained which are set aside accordingly. Civil Appeal Nos. C
4593-4594 and 4595-4596 of 2002 are allowed; whereas Civil Appeal No.4597
of 2002 is dismissed. No costs.

N.J. C.A. Nos. 4593-4594/2002 and C.A. Nos. 4594-4596/2002
allowed C.A. No. 4597/2002 dismissed.