IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL No.1039 OF 2012 (S-PRO) BETWEEN:
UCO BANK A BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS) ACT, 1970 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR HEAD OFFICE-2, PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION AND IRM DEPARTMENT, 3-4, DD BLOCK SECTOR-I, SALTLAKE KOLKATA-700 064 BY CHIEF OFFICER, ZONAL OFFICE BENGALURU.
….APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAKSHITH BOPANNA P G, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. N DINESH RAO, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. B T KUMAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS SON OF B V THIMMARAYAPPA WORKING AS CLERK AT UCO BANK RETAIL BANKING DEPARTMENT REGIONAL OFFICE, K G ROAD BENGALURU-560 009.
AND RESIDING AT No. 33, 8TH CROSS VASANTHANAGAR BENGALURU-52.
2. UNION OF INDIA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT IN THE DEPARTMENT OF BANKING MINISTRY OF FINANCE PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI-110 001.
…..RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. NAGAPRASANNA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. M. L. SUVARNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 SRI. M N KUMAR, CGC FOR R-2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No. 17847 OF 2006 (S-PRO) DATED 07.12.2011.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 22.10.2019, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, ASHOK S. KINAGI J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The appellant herein is respondent No.1, respondent No.1 herein is the petitioner and respondent No.2 herein is the respondent No.2 before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. The parties are referred to as per their ranks before the learned Single Judge.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe and was working with the respondent No.1-Bank. The respondent No.1 contemplated promotion policy settlement. The petitioner was entitled for promotion from the cadre of peon to the cadre of clerk from 16.02.1991. But the petitioner was not promoted under the said policy. Petitioner aggrieved by his non-promotion to clerical cadre, filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority.
When no reply was forthcoming from the respondent No.1, the petitioner approached this court in Writ Petition No.11767 of 1991. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. This court taking into consideration of the rejection of the appeal, disposed off the writ petition by order dated 30.03.1999. The petitioner was constrained to file another writ petition in Writ Petition No.33199 of 1999 before this court. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner was promoted as a clerk on 09.01.2002. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 made a submission to the court in the aforesaid writ petition in regard to promotion of the petitioner and submitted that the writ petition has become infructuous. This court rejected the submission of the bank and passed a final order dated 13.02.2006. The petitioner submitted a representation along with a copy of the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition. The respondent No.1 rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 28.09.2006.
The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 28.09.2006, filed Writ Petition No.17847 of 2006 before this court. The learned Single Judge, after considering the Clause mentioned in the settlement, observed that respondent No.1 has not taken into account the notification dated 28.01.1952 issued by the Government of India and also Clause No.8.1, allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent No.1-Bank to promote the petitioner as a clerk with effect from 07.04.1993, taking into account the length of service to which the petitioner would be entitled for pension and retirement benefits, etc.
The respondent No.1 aggrieved by the order dated 07.12.2011, passed in Writ Petition No.17847 of 2006, has filed the present writ appeal.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. In the year 1989, the respondent No.1- Bank, as per the terms of settlement dated 13.04.1988 and also the brochure on reservation for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe in- service, notified two vacancies for promotion from sub-staff cadre to clerical cadre in Karnataka region. Out of these two posts, one was reserved for Scheduled Caste and another post was in the category of unreserved. Since the petitioner belonged to Scheduled Tribe, his claim was not considered either in Scheduled Caste category or under Scheduled Tribe category. As per the settlement deed dated 13.04.1988, Clause No.8.1 reads as under:
“8.1. Reservation for SC/ST: The directives of the Government of India regarding reservation of posts for candidates belonging to SC/ST as in force, from time to time, would be applicable in the case of promotions – a) from subordinate cadre to clerical cadre;
and b) from clerical cadre to the officers’ cadre in Bank’s Junior Management Grade Scale-I.”
5. In view of the above said Clause in the settlement, the respondent No.1 is under obligation to follow the instructions given by the Government of India from time to time on the question of providing reservation for SC/ST in- services. Clause 8.1 manifestly makes it clear that in a particular manner the respondent No.1 shall fix a roster to appoint and promote the SC/ST workmen from sub-staff to clerical cadre. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe and is entitled for relaxation as provided under Clause 4.6 and further having regard to his qualification, he is entitled for consideration of his case for promotion, both under Channel-I, as also under Channel-II. This court, vide its order dated 13.02.2006 passed in Writ Petition No.33199 of 1999, directed the respondent No.1 to consider the claim of the petitioner for deemed promotion from subordinate cadre to clerical cadre from the year 1993 and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
The respondent No.1, without considering the directions issued by this court in Writ Petition No.33199 of 1999, has rejected the claim of the petitioner. The action of the respondent No.1 in rejecting the claim of the petitioner is arbitrary and contrary to the directions issued by this court in the aforesaid writ petition.
6. The respondent No.1 has taken the same defense in Writ Petition No.33199 of 1999 in regard to shifting of roster to the next point. This court rejected the contention of respondent No.1 and made observation as under:
“A combined reading of the brochure issued by the Government of India and the terms of settlement, Clause 8.1 manifestly makes it clear that in a particular manner the respondent- Bank shall fix the roster to appoint and promote the SC and ST workman from sub-staff to clerical cadre.”
7. Having arrived at the above findings, this court set aside the endorsement dated 05.12.1997 issued by the respondent No.1, after observing as under:
“It is the grievance of the petitioner in this case that the respondent-Bank has unjustly transferred the unfilled SC vacancies from Channel-I to Channel-II. This practice adopted by the respondent- Bank resulted in denial of promotion to the petitioner in 1991 and in 1996. The respondent-Bank in the impugned endorsement dated 05.12.1997 has not stated the grounds on which the claim of petitioner is rejected. The impugned endorsement is not a speaking order. While issuing the impugned endorsement, the respondent-Bank has not taken into account the guidelines issued by the Government of India under its notification dated 28.01.1952 and also Clause 8.1 of the settlement dated 13.04.1988. Therefore, the impugned endorsement dated 5.12.97 is required to be quashed.”
8. After setting aside the endorsement issued, a specific direction was issued to consider the claim of the petitioner for deemed promotion from subordinate cadre to clerical cadre from the year 1993. As observed above, the respondent No.1, without considering the directions issued by this court in the aforesaid writ petition, rejected the claim of the petitioner.
9. The Central Government prescribed a 40 point roster for the posts to be filled by promotion, under which, point No.1 in the roster is shown as reserved for Scheduled Caste and point Nos.2 and 3 are shown as unreserved and point No.4 is shown as reserved for Scheduled Tribe. Under para 3.15 of the brochure on reservation for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe in Public Sector Banks indicates that the roster is intended to be an aid to determine the number of vacancies to be reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. Under para 3.4(3) of the brochure, where a Scheduled Caste candidate is not available, the reserved post may be merely shifted to the next point in the roster. When there is neither a Scheduled Caste candidate nor a general merit candidate available for promotion under Channel-I, the petitioner would have been promoted against one of those points or against point No.4 reserved for Scheduled Tribe.
10. Under para 7.7 of the said roster, the petitioner ought to have been promoted by exchanging roster point No.1 reserved for Scheduled Caste with point No.4 reserved for Scheduled Tribe. The action of the respondent in denying the promotion of the petitioner on the ground that the bank has so far not found an eligible Scheduled Caste candidate for being promoted against the roster point No.1, is arbitrary, contrary to the settlement deed dated 13.04.1988, brochure on reservation for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe in-service and the directions issued by this court in the aforesaid writ petition.
11. The learned Single Judge, after considering the settlement deed dated 13.04.1988 and brochure on reservation for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe in-service, was justified in quashing Annexure-R enclosed to the writ petition and directing the respondent No.1-Bank to promote the petitioner as a clerk with effect from 07.04.1993 and grant all such consequential benefits, etc. We do not find any grounds to interfere with the well-reasoned impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
12. In these circumstances, we proceed to pass the following:
Order The writ appeal is dismissed.
The respondent No.1 is directed to comply with the order dated 07.12.2011, passed in Writ Petition No.17847 of 2006, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RD