ALL INDIA STATE BANK OFFICERS FEDERATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-1990-4-30
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on April 16,1990

All India State Bank Officers Federation Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

GULSHAN KUMAR VS. COLLECTOR GHAZIABAD [LAWS(ALL)-1993-10-15] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL KARIM VS. STATE OF MIZORAM [LAWS(GAU)-2008-3-14] [REFERRED TO]
B SRINIVASA REDDY VS. KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY [LAWS(KAR)-2006-4-47] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER VS. KEDAR NATH BANSAL [LAWS(CAL)-2008-9-34] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF TELECOM EMPLOYEES VS. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR BSNL HEAD QUARTERS [LAWS(MAD)-2005-8-34] [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR SR/WC NEW DELHI VS. ALL INDIA RURAL POSTAL EMPLOYEES UNION [LAWS(MAD)-2009-1-221] [REFERRED TO]
DAHYABHAI RANABHAI VAGHELA VS. BLOOM DEKOR LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-1994-4-42] [RELIED ON]
BHAGWANJI VISHAVJI THAKKAR VS. PRAVINCHANDRA JIVANBHAI PATADIA [LAWS(GJH)-1995-3-10] [REFERRED TO]
LARSON AND TOUBRO LTD VS. INSPECTOR OF MOTOR VEHICLES [LAWS(GJH)-2006-9-16] [REFERRED TO]
BHANKERPUR SIMBHAOLI BEVERAGES P LTD VS. SARABHJIT SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1995-2-85] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ RISHI GUPTA VS. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(P&H)-1995-3-78] [REFERRED TO]
BHANKERPUR SIMBHAOLI BEVERAGES P. LTD. AND ANR. VS. P.R. PANDYA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-1995-2-140] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This order will dispose of a preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents that these writ petitions should be dismissed because the petitioners have suppressed certain material facts from this court and have also tried to abuse the process of court in the manner hereinafter appearing.
(2.)Writ Petition No. 507 of 1989 has been filed by the All India State Bank Officers Federation (hereinafter called 'the Federation') through its President. It was filed in this court on 21/04/1989 and was sup- ported by an affidavit of Umed Singh, President of the Federation, affirming the contents of the petition to be true to his personal knowledge. By this writ petition the Federation seeks to impugn a new promotion policy decided upon by the State Bank of India (hereinafter called 'the Bank'). In paragraph 9 (mm) of the petition it is stated that the petitioners are approaching this court in great haste as the Bank is moving with great speed and is likely to constitute Departmental Promotion Committees and declare the results of the interviews in implementation of the new promotion policy within the next two or three days. In the affidavit of Umed Singh, referred to earlier, it has been stated in paragraph 4 that the petitioners have not filed any other similar writ petition in this Honourable court or any other High court.
(3.)In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Bank, it is stated that the statement in paragraph 4 of the petition in support of the writ petition is false. It is pointed out that the Federation through its Deputy General secretary had filed Writ Petition No. 5286 of 1989 in the High court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, along with an application No. 6969 of 1989, seeking stay of the promotion policy. On 13/04/1989 the Andhra Pradesh High court admitted the writ petition but the learned Judge rejected the application for interim stay observing "that he was prima facie satisfied that the selection is going on according to a fair procedure and that there is no need to stay any of the interviews or the appointments". It is further pointed out that another petition has also been filed by the State Bank of India Officers Association (Karnataka) having its office at Bangalore in the Karnataka High court, being Writ Petition No. 7848 of 1989. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioners have suppressed from this court the material fact that a writ petition had already been filed by them in the Andhra Pradesh High court and thatan application for stay had been made and rejected by the said court. A second objection to the maintainability of the petition raised on behalf of the Bank in paragraph 3 of its counter-affidavit was that since promotions had already been made they could not be disturbed "as the promoted officers have not been made parties". It is common ground that 58 officers had been promoted w. e. f. 24/04/1989 but no steps werfe taken to implead these officers, who would be directly affected as a result of the prayer made in the writ petition,
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.