B.N. Misra, J. - (1.) Non-consideration for promotion from the due date is the grievance of the petitioners.
(2.) Under the State Bank of India (Supervising Stall) Service Rules which came into force with effect from 1-7-1975, at the junior level there were two categories of officers ; "Officer Grade I-' and "Officer Grade 11". The petitioner belonged to the category of "Officers Grade II'. The Officers' Federation had for a long time been pressing its demand for abolition of the distinction between the two grades In the mean time Government had appointed the Pillai Committee to look into the question of standardisation of pay and allowances of officers working in the nationalised Banks. After the Pillai Committee submitted its report, Government decided that the recommendations of the Pillai Committee should also apply to officers of the State Bank of India. The Pillai Committee inter alia, recommended four grades of officers, the Top Executive Grade, the Senior Management Grade, the Middle Management Grade and the Junior Management Grade. Thereaf ter the Executive Committee of the Central Board of the State Bank of India, after discussions with the Officers' Federation, agreed to do away with the distinction between 'Officer Grade I' and 'Officer Grade II', who were to be placed in the Junior Management Grade, Scale I. Thereafter the Central Board of the Bank in exercise of its powers under sub-section (1) of Section 43 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955, made the State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979 (hereafter referred to as 'the 1979 Order'). The 1979 Order was actually made and published on 19-12-1979, but it was brought into force with effect from 1-10-T/79. With the coming into force of the 1979 Order and the abolition of the distinction between 'Officer Grade V and 'Officer Grade II', the petitioners came to be borne in the Junior Management Grade, Scale I. There is no dispute that the petitioners are 'existing Officers' within the meaning of that expression as contained in paragraph 3 of the 1979 Order. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the 1979 Order deal with placement and fitment respectively of existing Officers and their seniority is to be determined as provided in paragraph 18 of the Order. The petitioners have stated that prior to the coming into force of the 1979 Order, the Bank used to hold tests and interviews of Grade II Officers for promotion to Grade I. Probationary Officers and Trainees Officers were taken in by different examinations. The holding of tests and interviews of Grade II Officers was not regular and sometimes selections were not held throughout the year and in such cases when the tests and interviews were held subsequently, the successful officers were placed in Grade I from the date on which they had completed two years of service in Grade II. The petitioners have further stated that the channel for promotion of Grade II Officers to Grade I had been totally blocked after 1978 while the channel for promotion of Trainee Officer was still left open. On these promises the petitioners filed the present writ petition praying for directions to the respondent Bank to hold the test and interview for promotion to the erstwhile Grade 1 Officers' cadre, to consider the petitioners for promotion to the Middle Management Grade and for fixation, of their seniority on the basis of their appointments.
(3.) In its counter the respondent Bank has, inter alia, taken the stand that relying upon the resolution, dated 19-12-1979 of the Central Board and in order to avoid any inter se anomalies between Grade II and Grade I Officers, the respondent Bank did not consider if expedient to hold promotional test for Grade II Officers prior to 30-9-1979 on which date they were deemed to be promoted and confirmed as Officer Grade I under the merger scheme. It is explained that the process of requirement of Trainee Officers and Probationary Officers was different under separate channels of promotion and recruitment. The allegation discrimination is denied. It is further stated that seniority of the petitioners has been fully protected under sub-paragraph 5 of paragraph 18 of the 1979 Order and that the petitioners 'would be entitled to promotion to higher grade in due course.;