http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10

PETITIONER:

SYNDICATE BANK SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES EMPLOY-

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/08/1990

BENCH:

KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)

BENCH:

KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)

AGRAWAL, S.C. (J)

CITATION:

1990 SCR (3) 713 1990 SCC Supl. 350

JT 1990 (3) 468 1990 SCALE (2)229

ACT:

Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14 and 16 --Sched-

uled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Employees--Syndicate

Bank--Group `A' posts reservation for SC/ST Officers--Appli-

cation of roster system--Directions by Court--Reservation

policy in respect of SC/ST applicable to such posts.

HEADNOTE:

The Syndicate Bank Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

Employees Associated representing the interests of SC/ST

employees throughout the country and three Assistant Manag-

ers of the Bank have 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 I 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 to implement

the principles enshrined in the Constitution of granting

benefit of members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled 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 promo-

tions 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.C. letter dated 31.12.1977 ad-

dressed 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 reserva-

tion 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

714

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 by O.M. dated

23.12.1974 issued by the department of Personnel and Admin-

istrative Reforms to all the Ministries on the same lines.

However the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10

affairs (Banking Division) issued a circular dated 30.5.1981

to all the nationalised banks 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 instruc-

tions contained 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 officers 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

promotions 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 within the

officers cadre and continues to follow the selection method

of promotion which has lead to the filing 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 the benefit of reservation policy

to members 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 apply-

ing the principle already decided in Bihar State Harijan

Kalyan Parishad's case to the Syndicate Bank and in not

giving it a clear direction this regard. [725G-H; 726A]

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 absence 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]

715

Though Group 'A' posts were selection posts still the

reservation policy is applicable to such posts and the

respondents are directed to compute the backlog of unfilled

reserved quota available to SC/ST officers in the promotion-

al posts with effect from 1.1.1978, the date of introduction

of reservation policy in the respondent bank. The respond-

ents 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 dates

they should have been promoted, after applying the roster

system in their favour. [726D-E]

Bihar State Harijan Kalval Parishad v. Union of India &

Ors.. [1985] 2 SCC 644, followed.

JUDGMENT:

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 847 of 1987.

(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.

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

the Respondents.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KASLIWAL, J. This Petition under Article 32 of the

Constitution 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'

Officers posts which are Class I posts contain different

grades called Junior Management Grade Scale I, Middle Man-

agement Grade Scale II, Middle Management Grade Scale III

and like this upto Grade Scale VII. The criteria for promo-

tions from Junior Management Grade Scale I to Middle Manage-

ment Grade Scale II and so on is based on a promotion policy

dated 17.9.1985 flamed in this regard by the Bank. According

to the petitioners the Syndicate Bank is a Nationalised Bank

owned and controlled by the Central Government. All the

policy decisions and major internal administration are

regulated and governed by and under Rules issued by the

Central Government from time to time. In order to implement

the principles enshrined in the Constitution of India grant-

ing benefit to members belonging to Scheduled

716

Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the Central Government evolved

the concept of quota system in the ratio of 15% and 7-1/2%

reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes re-

spectively both at the time of recruitment as well as at the

time of promotions in all Government organisations.

It has been further alleged by the Petitioners that 14

leading banks of the country were nationalised in the year

1969 and the Government ought to have extended the said

policy of reservation in the banking sector also w.e.f.

1969. However, the reservation policy was extended to the

banking industry initially in the year 1972, but that re-

mained restricted in respect of appointments made by direct

recruitment only. Later on by a D.O. Letter No. 10/24/74-SCT

(B) dated 31.12.1977 the Central Government called upon the

banks to implement 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

cadres made through selection method is barred. The peti-

tioners 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 reservations 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 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 Banks

existing at that time in the matter of reservation for

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in respect of promo-

tion. In the aforesaid letter after making a reference to

the Department's letter D.O. No. 10/24/75-SCT (B) dated

31.12.1977 Ministry of Home Affairs O.M. No. 1/9/69-Esstt

(SCT) dated 26.3.1970 and Department of Personnel and Admin-

istrative Reforms O.M. No. 1/10/74-Esstt (SCT) dated

23.12.74 it was stated that as per the above Government

orders there is no reservation for Scheduled Castes and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10

Scheduled Tribes in 'Promotion by Selection' within the

Officers cadre. It was further stated in the above circular

that certain concessions and facilities are to be provided

to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Officers in

order to improve their chances for selection to the Higher

categories of posts in the Officers cadre in accordance with

the orders contained in the

717

aforesaid O.Ms of Ministry of Home Affairs. It was further

stated that it has been decided that the concessions men-

tioned 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 Selec-

tions' to posts within the Officers cadre upto Scale III.

All the banks were requested to implement the Government

instructions contained in the Officer Memorandums of Minis-

try of Home Affairs and Department of Personnel and Adminis-

trative Reforms 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

Government wrongly and erroneously interpreted the above

circulars and in taking the view that there was no reserva-

tion in the promotional posts within the officers cadre. In

identical circumstances 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-

nel Manager Bokaro Steel Plant took the view that the Sched-

uled 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

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 selection 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' carry-

ing a salary of Rs.2250 per month or less, it is prescribed

that only those officers belonging to the Scheduled Castes

and Scheduled Tribes will be considered for promotion who

are senior be within the zone of consideration. Thereafter a

Select List 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

718

departmental Promotion Committee on the basis of the record

of 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 officer's placed above them in he Select List

made by Departmental Promotion Committee. The court bus

quashed the List dated April 8, 1982 and August 19, 1982 and

directed the respondents to give effect to paragraph 9 of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10

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 21st January, 1987

deciding the above miscellaneous petition and made the

following observations:

"We wish to clarify the position by stating that the Sched-

uled Castes/Scheduled Tribes Officers who are senior enough

to be within zone of consideration for promotion should be

included in the Select List against the vacancies available

to-the members of Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes accord-

ing to the rosters, provided they 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 respective dates with effect 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 Syndi-

cate Bank SC/ST employees Association and the Management of

Syndicate Bank on 16th and 17th April, 1986. In the afore-

said meeting the representatives of the management were

fully convinced with the stand taken by the representatives

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 Division) for their approval. The peti-

tioners thereafter made frantic efforts and also submitted

representations but no relief was granted to the petition-

ers. 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 em-

ployees in Indian Overseas Bank that he had checked up his

reply to the Lok Sabha

719

starred question No. 342 answered on 5th August. 1986 and

had"' got further clarifications from the bank of the

subject. It was further stated in the above letter as fol-

lows:

"In respect of promotions. the bank was maintaining rosters

for only such category of posts to which the reservations

were being applied by the bank. Since as per the 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 promotions 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 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. The bank has accepted its

mistake and has already agreed to provide for reservations

and also to calculate the backlog from 1978 when the reser-

vations in promotions were first introduced in the banks."

It may be also mentioned that the Government of India,

Ministry 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10

clarified the position in regard to reservations for SC/ST

in promotions as under:

"It may be recalled that instructions were issued by the

Government on 3.5.1980 advising bank to apply the provisions

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

where promotions are made on the basis of a written examina-

tion followed by interview and/or on the basis of the inter-

view. 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

720

of promotions followed by them and ensure that wherever 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 intimating the information, the

methodology adopted for effecting promotions from various

cadres/scales should be specifically intimated".

The grievances of the petitioners is that despite the

aforesaid unequivocal directions from the Government, the

bank failed to make 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 Kalvan Parishad v. Union Of India &

Ors., (supra) and further order of clarification dated 21st

January, 1987, the petitioners were entitled to the same

treatment. However the grievances of the petitioners were

not redressed and a view was taken by authorities of the

respondent/bank that there was no direction for the Govern-

ment of India for prescribing reservation policy for offi-

cers cadre and that they were following the selection method

or promotion in the case of Officers posts.

The Union of India flied a counter affidavit contesting the

stand taken by the petitioners. So far as the bank is con-

cerned they did not any separate reply in detail but took

the stand that the Syndicate banks was a Nationalised bank

and was under the Administrative control of the Government

of India, Banking Division as such the bank is guided in the

discharge of its functions by any directions issued by B-

anking Division, Ministry of Finance, Government of India

from one to time. Reference was made to Regulation 17(1)

according to which promotions to all grades of officers in

the Bank were required to be made in accordance with the

policy laid down by the Board from 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 Government of India in its counter affidavit.

We have heard Mr. R. Sachar, Learned counsel for the peti-

tioner. K.N. Bhat, for the Syndicate Bank and Mr. R. Rajap-

pa, 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 petition, but the Learned

Counsel appearing for the Union of

721

India conceded before us and made a statement that he was

not pressing 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10

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

not granting relief to the petitioners in as much as the

Government of India was not clear in its policy of reserva-

tion. The attitude of the Government of India is clearly

discernible from its counter affidavit 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.

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 discus-

sions between the officials of the bank and banking division

regarding reservations for SC ST employees of the 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 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 in 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:

"It may be recalled that instructions were issued by the

Government on 3.5.80 advising banks to apply the provisions

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

where promotions are made on the basis of a written examina-

tion followed by interview and/or on the basis of the inter-

view. On the other hand promotions based on the

722

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 wher-

ever the rosters are to be maintained for determining the

number of vacancies reserved for SC/ST, this be done scrupu-

lously. 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

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 movement

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 III and above".

It was thus submitted that from a reading of the two

letters dated 22.11.86 and 28.11.86 together with the promo-

tion policy issued by the Syndicate Bank it was clear that

for promotions from one scale to another upto SMG IV was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10

based on seniority and the Syndicate Bank as such ought to

have made promotions upto SMGS IV by giving 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 of service as on 31st December of previous year. No

promotions were made in 1979, 1980 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 follows:

723

Movement Minimum Points Points Maximum Maximum

from eligibility for the points points

service as senio- educa- for for

on 31st rity tional perfor- potential

December & Profe- mance as iden-

of Previous ssional in the fied in

Year qualifi- scale the inter

cation view

JMGS to 7 years in 60 10 30 Nil

MMGS II JMGS I

MMGS II 5 years in 50 - 30 20

to MMGS MMGS II

III

MMGS III 5 years in 20 - 50 30

to SMGS MMGS III

IV

SMGS IV 3 years in - 60 40

to TEGS V SMGS IV

SMGS V to 2 years in - - 60 40

TEGS VI SMGS V

TEGS VI to 3 years in - - 60 40

TEGS VII TEGS VI

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 memorandum

dated 27.11.72 had provided for reservation of 15% and 71/2%

for SC and ST candidates respectively, and the Government of

India Banking Division, had made the reservation policy

applicable in the 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 respondent 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.

724

Sachar also submitted that as already mentioned above in the

matter of 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

position i.e. interpreting the statute or any other document

by reference to the exposition it has received from contem-

porary 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 conten-

tion is placed on Desh Bandhu Gupta & Company & Others v.

Delhi Stock Exchange Assn. Ltd., [1979] 3 SCR 373.

We find no force in the above contention of Mr. Sachat.

A perusal of the promotion policy goes to show that for the

purpose of promotions in the cader of officers from JMGS to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10

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 factors based on selective process were

also important and as such it cannot be held that such

promotions in the higher scale were based solely on seniori-

ty. 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 inter-

view have also to be assessed while making appointment by

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 con-

sidered as promotion otherwise than by the method of selec-

tion. In our view unless the promotion is based on seniority

alone and other factors based on merit such as educational

and professional qualifications, performance in the 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 sen-

iority 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.

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 selection basis. Howev-

er the rule of reservation for SCs/STs will apply to ap-

pointments made by promotion on selection basis, subject to

a procedure somewhat different from usual procedure adopted

in filling up

725

posts reserved for SCs and STs on selection basis alone for

appointments to be made by direct recruitment.

Mr. Sachar then submitted that in case the above policy

of promotion 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 & Ors., (supra).

It was contended that in 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 ultimate salary of Rs.2250 per month, or less, the

Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe officers, who are senior

enough in the zone of consideration for promotion so as to

be within the number of vacancies for which the Select List

has to be drawn up, would be included in that list provided

they are not considered unfit for promotion. Their position

in the select list would, however be the same as assigned to

them by the Departmental Promotion Committee on the basis of

their record of service. They would not be given, for this

purpose one grading higher than the grading otherwise as-

signable to them on the basis of their record of service".

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 selec-

tion methods" 'makes it abundantly clear that the rule of

reservation is also applicable to promotion by selection to

posts within group 'A' which carry ultimate salary of

Rs.2250 per month or less but that the procedure is slightly

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10

different than in the case of other posts.

We find force in this alternative submission made by Mr.

Sachat. Even though the promotional posts are based on

selection method, the rule of reservation will apply to

posts within group 'A' and the benefit of reservation policy

to members of SC and ST cannot be denied on the ground that

promotional posts are to be filled by method of selection.

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. Gov-

ernment of India committed a clear mistake in

726

not applying the principle 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 management of Syndicate Bank. 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 Banking division of the Finance

Ministry 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 derogation to the principle

already decided in the case of Bihar State Harijan Kalyan

Parishad, (supra) by this Court.

In the result this petition is allowed. The orders of

the respondents 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 respondents are

directed to compute the backlog of untilled 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 employ-

ees of the Syndicate Bank with all consequential benefits of

salary and allowances from the respective 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.

727