Holding

The High Court was not entitled to direct promotion; it may only direct the employer to consider the officer’s case, and the retrospective promotion order was set aside.

Summary

Mohd. Mynuddin, a Manager (Middle Management Grade Scale II) in State Bank of India, was repeatedly denied promotion to Grade Scale III despite satisfactory confidential reports. He filed a writ petition seeking a direction for promotion with retrospective effect from 1979, arguing eligibility and lack of adverse remarks. The Andhra Pradesh High Court directed the bank to promote him, a decision affirmed by its Division Bench. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that promotion to posts filled by selection must be based on merit and that the court cannot order promotion without giving the employer an opportunity to reassess the officer’s fitness. The Court set aside the High Court’s direction, directing the bank to reconsider the promotion within four months and to promote him if found fit. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Can a court direct promotion to a higher post when the promotion is by selection and based on merit?
Does the absence of adverse remarks in confidential reports automatically entitle an employee to promotion?
Was the High Court justified in issuing a retrospective promotion order without allowing the management to reconsider the officer's suitability?
Was there any bias, mala fides, or violation of natural justice in the selection process?
Was the management's denial of promotion arbitrary or illegal under service law?

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226, s. Article 32
Mysore State Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1957s. Rule 43(b)

Subjects

service lawpromotion by selectioncourt jurisdictionadministrative lawseniority vs meritbiasmala fidespublic serviceState Bank of India

Judgment

A STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
MOHD. MYNUDDIN

JULY 17, 1987

B [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.]

Service Law-Practice & Procedure:

Selection Post-Promotion on merit-Decision of Selection Com-
mittee to prevail unless vitiated by ma/a fides or bias. Seniority and -
C satisfactory Service not relevant.

Constitution of India, Articles 226 & 32: Service Matters-
Promotion-Powers of the Court-Court can direct consideration of
the case-Cannot direct promotion. ~

D The respondent holding a Middle Management Grade Scale II
post in the appellant Bank was fonnd not fit for promotion to Grade
Scale III by the Selection Committee in the year 1979 and superseded,
His case was again considered in the years 1980, 1981 and 1983 but ' ~
denied promotion. He filed a writ petition in the High Court in 1984 for
the issue of a direction to the mauagement to promote him to the higher
E post with effect from 1979 with the assertion that he was fully eligible
for such promotion.

The Single Judge noticed that in respondent's confidential reports
for the years 1977-78, 1979-80 and 1980·81 it had been recorded that his
service was 'satisfactory' and that there were no adverse remarks
1
F against him. He, therefore, took the view that there was nothing which ,
disentitled the respondent to promotion and that the action of the
management in not promoting him was arbitrary, and accordingly
issued a direction to the appellants to promote the respondent with
effect from 1.8.1979 when his batch mates were promoted. The Division
Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants.
G
In this appeal by special leave it was contended for the appellants
that the promotion to Middle Management Grade Scale III posts~ •
depended not merely upon the eligibility but on merit and such promo-
tion was accorded only after a proper evaluation by the Selection Com-
mittee of the service records, performance appraisal and potentiality of
H the officer concerned to assume higher responsibilities, that the mere
532
S.ll.I. v. MOHD. MYNUDDIN 533

..... absence of adverse remarks did not entitle an employee to promotion to A
the next higher grade automatically when promotion was by selection.
that after applying the relevant tests laid dow:i by the management for
promotion to the Middle Management Grade Scale III it was found
from time to time that the respondent was not entitled to be promoted,
and that in any event the High Court was not right in issuing a direction
,_ to the management to promote the respondent to the higher post parti-
cularly in the absence of any plea of mala fides.
B

Allowing the appeal,
----
-· HELD: The High Court was not right in directing the appellants
to promote the respondent to the Middle Management Grade Scale Ill
with effect from 1979. [538C]
c
If promotion has been deniea arbitrarily or without any reason
ordinarily the Court can issue a direction to the management to con·
sider the case of the officer concerned for promotion but it cannot issue
a direction to promote the officer concerned to the higher post without D
giving an opportunity to the management to consider the question of
~ promotion. This is because the Court is not by its very nature compe·
tent to appreciate the abilities, qualities or attributes nel'.essary for the
task, office or duty of every kind of post which is to be filled up by
selection. The duties of such posts may need skills of different kinds-
scientific, technical, financial, industrial, commercial, administrative, E
educational etc. The evaluation of the abilities should, therefore, in the
-') public interest ordinarily be left to be done by the individual or a
committee consisting of persons who have the knowledge of the require-
ments of a given post. [536E·H]
~
Whenever promotion to a higher post is to be made on the basis of F
merit no officer can claim promotion to the higher post as a matter of
right by virtue of seniority alone with effect from the date on which his
juniors are promoted. It is not sufficient that in his confidential reports
it is recorded that his services are 'satisfactory'. An officer may be
capable of discharging the duties of the post held by him satisfactorily
but he may not be fit for the higher post. Before any such promotion can G
"~ be effected it is the duty of the management to consider the case of the
officer concerned on the basis of the relevant materials. Of course, the
process of selection adopted by them should always be honest and fair.
It is only when the process of selection i• vitiated on the ground of bias,
mala tides or any other similar vitiating circumstances other considera·
tions will arise. [536C·E; H; 537A] H
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3.S.C.R.

A State of Mysore and Anr. '·Syed Mohmood and Ors .. [19681 3
S.C.R. 363. applied.

Jn the instant case at all relevant times the case of the promotion
of respondent has been considered in accordance with law by the selec-
tion committee constituted by the appellant Bank and it did not find
B him tit for promotion on all such occasions. There is no allegation of
bias or mala tides urged against the members of the selection committee
or the management. The appellants, therefore, cannot be said to han
committed any error is not promoting the respondent. [5388-C]

The appellants are directed to consider the case of' the respondent
for promotion within four months from the date_ of the judgment. and if
C found fit to promote him forthwith. [538E]
-
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1387
of 1987.

D From the Judgment and Order dated 25. 9. 1986 of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in C.W. Appeal No. 1027of1986. .,._

A.K. Sen, K. Srinivasamurthy and Kailash Vasdev for the
Appellants.

E M.K. Ramamurthi and M.A. Kri~hna Murthy, for the Res-
pondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

VENKATARAMIAH, J. The State Bank of India and two of its
F officers have filed this appeal by special leave against the judgment of
a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal
No. 1027 of 1986 dated 25.9.1986 affirming the judgment dated
28.3.1986 of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 5133 of 1984
issuing a direction to the appellants to promote the responden~, Mohd.
Mynuddin to the Middle Management Grade Scale III.
G
The respondent who was holding the post of the Manager, S.I.B.
Division, State Bank of India, Vijayawada (Andhra Pradesh) which
was a post in Middle Management Grade Scale II filed the above writ
petition before the High Court in the year 1984 complaining that he
had been wrongly denied promotion to the Middle Management
H Grade Scale III along with some others who belonged to his batch
S.B.I. v. MOHD. MYM;DDIN [VENKATARAMIAH. J.] 535

.,,. without any reasonable ground, even though he was fully eligible for A
such promotion. On the above basis he prayed for the issue of a direc-
tion to the management to promote him to the higher post with effect
from 1979. According to the appellants his case was not considered in
the year 1979 on account of inadequacy of material regarding his eligi-
bility but when it was brought to the notice of the management that he
I. had necessary eligibility for the post, his case was considered in 1982 B
,.. for the vacancies of 1980 and 1981 but he was not selected. Again his
case for promotion was considered on 13.8.1983. Then again he was
.._.found not fit for promotion and, therefore, he was not promoted.

The main contention of the respondent before the High Court
was that since there were no adverse remarks in any of his confidential C
reports, he should have been promoted to the higher post. The learned
Single Judge noticed that in the confidential reports relating to the
respondent it had been recorded that his service was 'satisfactory' in
the years 1977-78, 1979-80 and 1980-81 and that there were no adverse
remarks against the respondent. The learned Single Judge, therefore.
found that on the material placed before the Court there was nothing D
which disentitled the respondent to the promotion in question and that
the actiun of the management in not promoting him was arbitrary. The
learned Single Judge accordingly allowed the writ petition and is".ed a
direction to the appellants to promote the respondent to the post of
Middle Management Grade Scale III with effect from !.~. !97Y when
hi> batch mates were promoted and that he should be given all conse- E
q uential benefits. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single
Judge the appellants filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the
High Court which, as stated earlier. dismissed the appeal affirming the
judgment of the learned Single Judge by its order dated 25.9. !%•'
against which this appeal by special leave is filed.
F
lt is admitted that the posts in the Middle Management Grade
Scale III in the State Bank of India are posts to which appointments
are made by selection. The State Bank of lndia stated before the High
Court that the promotion to Middle Management Grade Scale III
posts depended not merely upon the eligibility but on merit and such
• ~ promotion was accorded only after a proper evaluation of the service G
records. performance appraisal and potentiality of the officer con-
cerned to assume higher responsibilities. The evaluation was done by
the Selection Committee, which was expected to go into several
aspects including the merits and demerits of all the candidates who
were eligible. lt was further pleaded that the mere absence of adverse
remarks did not entitle an employee to promotion to the next higher H
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3.S.C.R.

A
grade automatically when promotion was by selection. It was further >-
pleaded that after applying the relevant tests laid down by several
circulars issued by the Management embodying the guidelines in
respect of the selection of officers for promotion to the Middle
Management Grade Scale III it was found from time to time that the
respondent was not entitled to be promoted. It was further pleaded
B before us that in any event the High Court was not right in issuing a 1
direction to the management to promote the respondent to the higher ·-"'
post particularly in the absence of any plea of mala tides. The learned
counsel for the appellants, however, has very fairly stated that even,._.
now the management is willing to consider the case of the respondent
for promotion on a proper appraisal of the relevant material by the
Selection Committee.
c
Whenever promotion to a higher post is to be made on the basis ...(
of merrt no officer can claim promotion to the higher post as a matter
of right by virtue of seniority alone with effect from the date on which
his juniors are promoted. It is not sufficient that in his confidential
D reports it is recorded that his services are 'satisfactory'. An officer may
be capable of discharging the duties of the post held by him satisfac- ~
torily but he may not be fit for the higher post. Before any such
promotion can be effected it is the duty of the management to consider
the case of the officer concerned on the basis of the relevant materials.
If promotion has been denied arbitrarily or without any reason ordi-
E narily the Court can issue a direction to the management to consider
the case of the officer concerned for promotion but it cannot issue a · ( .._
direction to promote the officer concerned to the higher post without
giving an opportunity to the management to consider the question of
promotion. There is good reason for taking this view. The Court is not
by its very nature competent to appreciate the abilities, qualities or
,....
F attributes necessary for the task, office or duty of every kind of post in
the modern world and it would be hazardous for it to undertake the
responsibility of assessing whether a person is fit for being promoted to
a higher post which is to be filled up by selection. The duties of such
posts may need skills of different kinds-scientific, technical, finan-
cial, industrial, commercial, administrative, educational etc. The
G methods of evaluation of the abilities or the competence of persons to ....
be selected for such posts have also become nowadays very much
refined and sophisticated and such evaluation should, therefore, in the
public interest ordinarily be left to be done by the individual or a
committee consisting of persons who have the knowledge of the re-
quirements of a given post, to be nominated by the employer. Of
H course, the process of selection adopted by them should always be

, .
S.B.I. v. MOHD. MYNUDD!N [VENKATARAMIAH, J.[ 537

~-4. honest and fair. It is only when the process of selection is vitiated on
A
the ground of bias, mala fides or any other similar vitiating circum-
stance other considerations will arise. The nature of the writ that can
be issued in cases like the one before us has been considered by this
Court in the State of Mysore and Anr. v. Syed Mahmood and Ors ..
[1968] 3 S.C.R. 363. In that case rule 43(b) of the Mysore State Civil
}- Services General Recruitment Rules, 1957 required promotion to be B
made by selection on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, that is seniority
subject to the fitness of the candidate to discharge the duties of the
-post from among persons eligible for promotion. While making selec-
tions for promotions to the posts of senior statistical assistants from the
-- cadre of junior statistical assistants. the State Government did not
consider the case of the respondents therein who were junior statistical
c
1. assistants, and published a list promoting persons ranking below them
~ in point of seniority. The resondents therein filed writ petition before
the High Court. The High Court while refusing to quash the seniority
list directed the appellant-State to promote the respondents as from
the dates on which their juniors were promoted and treat their promo-
tion as effective from that date. In the appeal filed against the judg- D
~ ment of the High Court this Court observed that while 'making selec-
tions for promotion to the posts of senior statistical assistants from the
cadre of junior statistical assistants, in !959, the State Government
was under a duty to consider whether having regard to their seniority
and fitness they should be promoted. Since the promotions were irre-
gularly made the respondents_ therein were entitled to ask the State E
-'"1 Government to reconsider their case. In the circumstances, this Court
observed. that the High Court could only issue a writ to the State
Government compelling it to perform its duty and to consider whether
-..f having regard to their seniority and fitness, the respondents should
have been promoted on the relevant dates when officers junior to them
were promoted and that instead of issuing such a writ the High Court F
had wrongly issued a writ directing the State Government to promote
them with retrospective effect. This Court further observed that the
j
<
High Court ought not to have issued such a writ without giving the
State Government an opportunity in the first instance to consider their
fitness for promotion in 1959. The ratio of the above decision is that
" )'Where the State Government or a statutory authority is under an obli- G
gation to promote an employee to a higher post which has to be filled
up by selection the State Government or the statutory authority alone
should be directed to consider the question whether the employee is
entitled to be so promoted and that the Court should not ordinarily
issue a writ to the Government or the statutory authority to promote
an officer straightaway. The principle enunciated in the above decision H

- . ;:-www. L!ll
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3.S.C.R.

A is equally applicable to the case on hand.

It is seen that the Selection Committee costituted by the State
Bank of India has considered the case of the respondent for promotion
to the vacancies of the years 1980 and 1981 and for the subsequent
period from time to time. The Selection Committee did not find the
B respondent fit for promotion on all such occasions. There is no allega- _...
tion of bias or mala fides urged against the members of the Selection
Committee or the management. On the material placed before us we
hold that at all relevant times the case of the promotion of respondent -
has been considered in accordance with law. No other contention is
urged before us. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case we
c do not find any error committed by the appellants. The High Court
was not. therefore. right in directing the appellants to promote the J.
respondent with effect from 1979. As mentioned earlier. the learned -""
counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Selection Committee
constituted by the appellants would again consider the case of the
respondent for promotion on a proper appraisal of the relevant
D material.

In the circumstances. we feel that the direction issued by the
High Court should be set aside and we accordingly do so. The appel-
lants are, however, directed to consider the case of the respondent for
promotion within four months from today and if on an assessment of
E the relevant material the State Bank of India finds that the respondent
is fit to be promoted. he shall be promoted forthwith. - ( '-

This appeal is accordingly disposed of. There will. howeve.r, be
no order as to costs.

F P.S.S. Appeal allowed.