M.V. RATNAM Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS
LAWS(APH)-1992-9-71
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on September 03,1992

M.V. Ratnam Appellant
VERSUS
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Eswara Prasad, J. - (1.)The next submission of Sri Jogayya Sarma is that the requirement of promotion appraisal is confined only to promotion to Senior Management Grade Scale IV-A and not to promotions to Senior Management Grade Scale IV. The contention of the learned counsel is erroneous. There is nothing in the amended promotion policy which came into effect on 1.8.1985 to indicate that the promotion appraisal is confined only to promotions to Scale IV-A and not to Scale IV. This is a common requirement both in the case of promotions to scale IV as well as to Scale IV-A. Even according to the unamended promotion policy which was relied on by Sri Sarma, promotion was not based merely on the length of service in Scale III. Four years of service in scale III was required in order to make an officer eligible for being considered for promotion to Scale IV. Further the requirement was that the action concerned should be satisfied that the performance of the officer in Scale III was satisfactory. The basis for promotion to Scale IV was the service record and the past performance of the concerned officer, which has also to be satisfactory service. Looking at the unamended promotion policy as well as amended policy which became effect from 1.8.1985, it is clear that it was necessary to make performance appraisal and assignment appraisal of the officer concerned, which is nothing but consideration of merit. The petitioner cannot claim promotion to the higher post as a matter of right by virtue of seniority alone as claimed by him. An officer may be capable of discharging the duties of his post held by him satisfactorily, 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.
(2.)In view of the above, there are no merits in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
;


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