SYNDICATE BANK SCHEDULED CASTES SCHEDULED TRIBES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION REGD Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-1990-8-42
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on August 10,1990

Syndicate Bank Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Employees Association Regd Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BIHAR STATE HARIJAN KALYAN PARISHAD VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

BAHADUR SINGH VS. DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-1992-10-44] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK SCHEDULED CASTE SCHEDULED TRIBES EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION REGD [LAWS(DLH)-1999-2-24] [REFERRED TO]
R K MINA VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2000-1-83] [REFERRED]
A M PARMAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1993-9-53] [REFERRED]
RAMESH RAI VS. CHAIRMAN S K G BANK [LAWS(ALL)-2005-2-188] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA PRASAD YADAV VS. CHAIRMAN SANYUKT KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK AZAMGARH [LAWS(ALL)-2008-1-41] [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA SCHEDULED CASTE TRIBE EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. STATE BANK OF INDIAS:S NARASIMHA [LAWS(SC)-1996-4-5] [FOLLOWED]
HARIGOVIND YADAV VS. REWA SIDHI GRAMIN BANK [LAWS(SC)-2006-5-54] [REFERRED TO]
LESLEY JACOB VS. INDIAN COUNCIL FOR RELATIONS I C C R [LAWS(APH)-2004-3-11] [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA VIJAYA BANK SC ST EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. VIJAYA BANK BANGALORE [LAWS(KAR)-1993-2-21] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP KUMAR SONI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2006-2-64] [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION LTD VS. ALL INDIA INSURANCE SC/ST EMPLOYEES ACTION [LAWS(MAD)-1997-8-64] [REFERRED TO]
GIAN SINGH NEGI VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(HPH)-1999-6-19] [REFERRED TO]
DR. (MRS.) VASUDHA GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, SHRI E. MARRIAPAN AND SECRETARY, UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(CA)-2014-1-33] [REFERRED TO]
RAJEEV RANJAN TRIPATHI VS. PURVANCHAL GRAMIN BANK [LAWS(ALL)-2010-5-48] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)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 Management Grade Scale II, Middle Management Grade Scale III and like this up to Grade Scale VII. The criteria for promotions from Junior Management Grade Scale I to Middle Management Grade Scale II and so on is based on a promotion policy dated 17/09/1985 framed in this regard by the Bank. a 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 granting benefit to members belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the central government evolved the concept of quota system in the ratio of 15 per cent and 7 1/2 per cent reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes respectively both at the time of recruitment as well as at the time of promotions in all government organisations.
(2.)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 remained 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 promotional 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 petitioners in this regard have submitted that an Office Memorandum issued by the Home Ministry as long back as on 26/03/1970 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. 00 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 26/03/1970. The government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) issued a Circular dated 30/05/1981 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 promotion. In the aforesaid letter after making a reference to the departments 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 26/03/1970 and Department of Personnel and Administrativereforms O. M. No. 1/10/74-Esstt (SCT) dated 23/12/1974 it was stated that as per the above government orders there is no reservation for Scheduled Castes and 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 aforesaid O. Ms. of Ministry of Home Affairs. It was further stated that it has been decided that the concessions mentioned in para 2 of Home Ministrys Office Memorandum dated 26/03/1970 would be available to the SC/st officers in public sector bank/financial institutions in 'promotions by Selections to posts with the officers cadre up to Scale III. All the banks were requested to implement the government instructions contained in the Office Memorandums of Ministry of Home Affairs and Department of Personnel 'and Administrative Reforms dated 26/03/1970 and 23/12/1974 respectively in the existing scheme of promotions with such procedural modifications as may be necessary.
(3.)The case of the petitioners further is that the central Government wrongly and erroneously interpreted the above circulars in taking the view that there was no reservation in the promotional posts within the officers cadre. In identical circumstances the Ministry of Steel and Mines in a letter dated 8/04/1982 addressed to the Chairman of the Steel Authority of India Limited and letter dated 19/08/1982 from the Steel Authority of India to the Chief Personnel Manager Bokaro Steel Plant took the view that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes personnel were not entitled to the benefit of reservation in the matter of promotion to 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 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. 2,250. 00 per month or less but the procedure is slightly different than the case of other posts. It was further held in the above case that while the rule of reservation applies to promotions by selection to posts within Group 'a carrying a salary of Rs. 2,250. 00 per month or less, it is prescribed that only those officers belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduledtribes will be considered for promotion who are senior to 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 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 officers placed above them in the Select List made by Departmental Promotion Committee. The court thus quashed the List dated 8/04/1982 and 19/08/1982 and directed the respondents to give effect to paragraph 9 of the Presidential directive w. e. f. the date of the directive, Subsequently a Miscellaneous Petition No. 3637 of 1986 was also filed in view of a misunderstanding of the above judgment by the authorities. The court by order dated 21/01/1987 decided the above miscellaneous petition and made the following observations :
"We wish to clarify the position by stating that the Scheduled 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 according 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. "

;


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