REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 891 OF 2015
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 209 OF 2015
|CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR | |
|CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS. |…..PETITIONERS |
|VERSUS | |
|CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA SC/ST EMPLOYEES |…..RESPONDENTS |
|WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ORS. | |
W I T H
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 837 OF 2015
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 213 OF 2015
W I T H
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 892 OF 2015
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 211 OF 2015
W I T H
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 903 OF 2015
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 210 OF 2015
W I T H
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1104 OF 2015
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 212 OF 2015
A N D
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2131 OF 2015
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 209 OF 2015
J U D G M E N T
A.K. SIKRI, J.
By our judgment dated January 09, 2015, we had decided
batch of appeals which were preferred by the Union of India as well as
certain banks. In these appeals, the validity of the judgment of the High
Court of Madras was questioned which held that in the matter of promotions
in the officer grades, there shall be reservation provided for the officers
belonging to the Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) categories
working in these banks. This decision of the High Court was predicated on
the interpretation to the provisions of Office Memorandum (OM) dated August
13, 1997 issued by the Central Government, along with certain other
connected Office Memoranda. It was concluded by the High Court that the
aforesaid OM dated August 13, 1997 provides for such a reservation in
favour of the SC/ST employees. The plea of the appellant banks was that
the said OM does not make any provisions for reservation in respect of
SC/ST employees.
The question, therefore, that needed determination by this Court was as to
whether there is any reservation in the promotions from one officer
grade/scale to higher grade/scale, when such promotions are to be made on
selection basis, i.e. on merits. The position taken by the appellant banks
was that there is no rule of reservation for promotion in Class-A (Class-I)
to the post/scales having basic salary of more than ?5,700 per month and OM
dated August 13, 1997 at best provides only a concession in the manner
officers belonging to SC/ST category are to be considered for promotion.
After hearing the counsel for the parties, judgment dated January 09, 2015
was rendered. Provisions of OM dated August 13, 1997 and other related
Office Memoranda were considered by this Court in that judgment. This
Court, after interpreting the said OM, came to the conclusion that this OM
did not provide for any reservation. Operative portion of the judgment in
arriving at the aforesaid conclusion reads as under:
“26. While considering this question, we have to keep in mind that
reservation policy of the Central Government is applicable to the appellant
Banks. It is the common case of both the parties. In fact, as already
noted above, there is a specific provision to this effect in the promotion
policies framed by the appellant Banks.
27) Next thing which is to be kept in mind is the two office memoranda,
one dated 1.11.1990 and the other dated 13.8.1997, which are referred to by
the counsel for the parties. We have already reproduced the aforesaid two
office memoranda. Insofar as, Office Memorandum dated 1.11.1990 is
concerned, a bare reading of this provision would reflect the following two
aspects:
(a) In promotion by selection within Class-I (Group-A) post, the SC/ST
candidates are to be given 'concession'.
(b) This concession is available to those SC/ST employees who are senior
enough in the zone of consideration for promotion so as to be within the
number of vacancies for which select list has to be drawn up.
Thus, first requirement is that such SC/ST candidates who come
within the zone of consideration for promotion are senior enough to be
within the number of vacancies. Once they come within the aforesaid zone
of consideration, they have to be included in the list, provided they are
not considered unfit for promotion. It clearly follows from the above that
once they come under the zone of consideration for promotion so as to be
within the number of vacancies for which select list has to be drawn up,
for such SC/ST employees the only embargo to deprive them of promotion is
when they are found unfit for promotion. For other officers in general
category, depending upon the rule of promotion, there may be much stricter
criteria based on comparative merit or selection by merit, etc. However,
in case of such senior enough SC/ST candidates, the criteria appears to be
seniority, subject to fitness.
(c) This OM specifically clears the doubt that the aforesaid provision is
only a concession and not reservation in favour of SC/ST candidates,
inasmuch as para 3 of the OM states that “It is hereby clarified that in
promotion by selection within Group-A post, which carry ultimate salary of
? 5,700/- per month, there is no reservation”. It is clear from the above
that insofar as Office Memorandum dated 1.11.1990 is concerned, there was
no provision for reservation made in favour of SC/ST candidates in
promotion by selection within Group-A posts carrying an ultimate salary of
?5,700 per month.
28) No doubt, this Office Memorandum was issued in the year 1990, that is
much before amendment in Article 16 of the Constitution, which was carried
out in the year 1995 by inserting Clause 4A. However, as already pointed
out above, Clause 4A is an enabling provision which empowers the State to
make reservations in the matter of promotions as well as in favour of SC/ST
employees. There was no such provision till 1.11.1990 in the matter of
promotion by selection within Group-A post which carry an ultimate salary
of ?5,700/- per month.
29) Having understood this, we come to Office Memorandum dated 13.8.1997
to find out as to whether this Memorandum makes any provision for
reservations in the matter of promotion in favour of SC/ST employees,
inasmuch as no other Office Memorandum or Circular or Rule, etc. is
produced on record for this purpose.
30) We have already noted above that a nine Judge Bench decision of this
Court in Indra Sawhney (supra) held that Clause 4 of Article 16 does not
cover the cases of promotion, meaning thereby, as per the said clause no
reservation in favour of SC/ST persons in the matter of promotions is
permissible. It is to nullify the effect of this dicta in the said
judgment that Clause 4A was inserted in Article 16 by Constitution's
Seventy-Seventh Amendment with effect from 17-06-1995. However, it is also
a matter of record that in Indra Sawhney's case (supra), this Court had
also clarified that reservation for SC/STs in promotion would continue for
a period of five years from 16-11-1992. What it meant was that if there is
a provision of reservation made in the matter of promotions,
notwithstanding the dicta in the said case that such a reservation is not
permissible, those provisions were allowed to continue for a period of five
years from 16-11-1992. Thereafter, before the expiry of five years,
constitutional provision was incorporated in the form of Clause 4A by
making provision for reservation in the matter of promotions as well.
These facts are taken note of in first two paras of Office Memorandum dated
13-08-1997. Thereafter, in the 3rd para of the said Memorandum, it is
provided:
“3. In pursuance of Article 16(4A), it has been decided to continue the
Reservation in promotion as at present, for the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes in the services/posts under the Central Government beyond
15.11.1997 till such time as the representation of each of the above two
categories in each cadre reaches the prescribed percentages of reservation
whereafter, the reservation in promotion shall continue to maintain the
representation to the extent of the prescribed percentages for the
respective categories.”
31) What is decided is to continue the reservation in promotion, which was
prevalent at that time, for the SC/ST employees, which was to continue in
terms of the judgment of this Court in Indra Sawhney (supra) till 15-11-
1997, even beyond 15-11-1997, till such time as the representation of each
of the above two categories in each cadre reaches the prescribed
percentages of reservation whereof. It is, thus, crystal clear from a bare
reading of this para that the existing provision relating to reservation in
promotion was allowed to continue beyond 15-11-1997. Thus, this Memorandum
did not make any new provision for reservation in promotion in favour of
SC/ST employees.
32) We have already noticed above that in matters of promotion within Group-
A posts, which carry an ultimate salary of ?5,700/- per month, there was no
provision for any reservation. On a conjoint reading of these two Office
Memorandums, in the absence of any other provision or Rule evidencing such
a reservation in the matter of promotions, it cannot be said that there was
reservation in promotion within Group-A posts upto the ultimate salary of
?5,700/- per month. The High Court in the impugned judgment has gone by
the lofty ideals enshrined in Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution as
well as the fact that in these Banks there is no adequate representation of
SC/ST category of officers in Group-IV and above. That may be so. It can
only provide justification for making a provision of this nature. However,
in the absence of such a provision, same cannot be read by overstretching
the language of Office Memorandum dated 13-08-1997. It is for the State to
take stock of the ground realities and take a decision as to whether it is
necessary to make provision for reservation in promotions to the aforesaid
post as well.”
As pointed out above, since the main issue that had arisen for
consideration stood answered in favour of the appellant banks, in normal
course, the appeals should have been allowed reversing the judgment dated
December 09, 2009 rendered by the High Court. However, during the course
of the arguments, the respondent employees had produced copy of OM dated
November 08, 2004 issued by the Department of Enterprises, as per which the
salary limit of ?5,700 mentioned in the OM dated August 13, 1997, was
treated as equivalent to ?18,300 on the implementation of the Fifth Central
Pay Commission Report in respect of those public sector undertakings which
were following the Central Pay pattern and in the case of public sector
undertakings following Industrial Dearness Allowance (IDA) pattern,
monetary ceiling was fixed as ?20,800. On that basis, this Court proceeded
further to discuss that aspect with the observation that the High Court had
failed to consider the same. Discussing this aspect, this Court held that
even when there was no policy of reservation for the post carrying pay-
scale of more than ?5,700 per month, the reservation was there in respect
of the post carrying basic pay of upto ?5,700 per month and with the
implementation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission Report, it would follow
that such reservation was applicable to the post carrying pay-scale of
?18,300. On that basis, it was held that since pay-scale of the posts upto
Scale VI was ?18,300, insofar as promotions from Scale I to Scale II, Scale
II to Scale III, Scale III to Scale IV, Scale IV to Scale V and Scale V to
Scale VI are concerned, reservation is to be provided. It is this
direction/portion of the judgment in respect of which the instant review
petitions are filed. Thus, it would be apt to reproduce the discussion
touching upon this aspect in the judgment. The same reads as under:
“33. Having said so, one other aspect which has to be necessarily
addressed to at this stage calls for our attention. This aspect, which we
are going to point out now, has been totally glossed over by the learned
Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court in their
respective judgments.
34. It is provided in Office Memorandum dated 01-11-1990, and we have
repeatedly stated above, that there is no reservation in promotion by
selection within only those Group-A posts which carry an ultimate salary of
?5,700/- per month. In such cases, it is only concession that applies. We
have accepted the contention of the appellant Banks in this behalf, as per
the discussion contained hereinabove. Significantly, what follows is that
reservation is provided in promotion by selection qua those posts which
carry an ultimate salary of less than ?5,700/- per month (pre-revised).
35. The Department of Public Enterprises had issued an Office Memorandum
dated 08-11-2004 as to the salary limit of ?5,700/- mentioned for the
purposes of reservation as ?18,300/- (5th Central Pay Commission) and in
the case of Public Sector Undertakings who are following Industrial
Dearness Allowance (IDA) pattern, the monetary ceiling was fixed as
?20,800/- (from 01-01-1996, i.e. 5th Central Pay Commission). The said pay
ceiling is achieved in the appellant Banks only when an officer reaches
Scale-VII. As a fortiorari, the policy of no reservation in the matter of
promotion is applicable only from Scale-VII and above. It, therefore,
clearly follows that insofar as promotion from Scale-I to Scale-II, Scale-
II to Scale-III, Scale-III to Scale-IV, Scale-IV to Scale-V, Scale-V to
Scale-VI are concerned, reservation is to be provided. The appellant
Banks, therefore, cannot take umbrage under the aforesaid Memorandum and
deny reservation in favour of SC/ST employees while carrying out promotions
upto to Scale-VI.
36. Upshot of the aforesaid discussion would be to allow these appeals
party. While setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court to the
extent it holds that Office Memorandum dated 13-08-1997 makes a provision
for reservation, it is clarified that at present there is no provision for
reservation in promotion by selection only in respect of those posts which
carry an ultimate salary of ?5,700/- per month (revised to ?18,300/- by 5th
Central Pay Commission and ?20,800/- per month in respect of those Public
Sector Undertakings following IDA pattern). Qua appellant Banks, that
would be in respect of Scale-VII and above. Therefore, to carry out
promotions from Scale-I upwards upto Scale-VI, reservation in promotion in
favour of SC/ST employees has to be given. It would have the effect of
allowing the writ petitions filed by the respondents/unions partly with
directions to the appellant Banks to make provision for reservations while
carrying out promotions from Scale-I to to Scale-II and upward upto Scale-
VI.
(emphasis supplied)”
Review petitions are filed by the Union of India as well as certain banks
which were parties to the appeals. In these review petitions, applications
for intervention/impleadment are filed by Indian Banks' Association
supporting the plea taken in the review petitions. On the other hand, All
India Central Bank SC/ST/OBC Employees Association-Kolkata, Bank of
Maharashtra SC/ST & OBC Employees' Association-Pune and State Bank of
Travancore SCs & STs Welfare Association have also filed applications for
intervention/impleadment with intent to oppose the review petitions.
Notice was issued to the respondent-employees/associations in these review
petitions. They have filed their counter affidavits to the review
petitions. We have heard counsel for all the parties before us. It was
also pleaded by the counsel on either side that since the issue raised in
the review petitions has bearing on the merits of the case, the issue
raised itself be finally decided.
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General appearing for the Union of
India, submitted that a fundamental error, which was an error apparent on
the face of the record, had crept in in paragraph 34 of the judgment
wherein it was observed that reservation is provided in promotion by
selection qua those posts which carry an ultimate salary of less than
?5,700 (pre-revised). He pointed out that in the earlier portion of the
same paragraph (which is reproduced and highlighted above), this Court had
reiterated, after detailed discussion, that there is no reservation in
promotion by selection in Group-A posts which carry an ultimate salary of
?5,700 per month and in such cases it is only the concession that applies.
He further submitted that in such a situation, OM dated November 08, 2005
issued by the Department of Enterprises, that too at the fag end of the
hearing of the appeals, had no relevance at all. He further submitted that
promotions were only up to Scale VI in these banks as the hierarchical
structure would reveal that Scale VII and above were in fact Board level
posts which are filled up by the Government and not by the Departmental
Promotion Committee of the concerned banks. In this manner, he argued that
in spite of deciding the main issue against the respondents, because of the
aforesaid error in the judgment, the said benefit was still bestowed by
giving reservations to the officers belonging to SC/ST category from Scale
I to Scale VI. He further demonstrated that in these banks, there were
four categories of employees, namely, sub-staff (Class IV), clerical,
officers and Board level posts. The promotions were provided from sub-
staff to clerical as well as from clerical to junior management grade
(Scale-I). However, there was no further promotion from Scale-I upward.
The learned Attorney General further argued that the entire case of the
respondent employees was based on OM dated August 13, 1997 and relying upon
the same, the respondent employees had argued that this OM provides for
reservation. However, this precise contention of the employees was
specifically turned down and repelled by this Court by interpreting the
said OM to mean that it does not provide for any reservation, but only
gives certain concessions to the employees belonging to SC/ST categories
while considering their cases for promotion. As a consequence, no further
discussion was required.
We find adequate force in the aforesaid submission of the learned Attorney
General. We have already reproduced those paragraphs of the judgment, i.e.
paragraph Nos. 26 to 32, wherein after interpreting OM dated August 13,
1997, it is categorically held that this OM does not provide for any
reservation. This is so stated in the opening lines of paragraph 34 as
well by emphasizing that there is no reservation in promotion by selection
within Group-A posts, which carry an ultimate salary of ?5,700 per month
and it is only concession that applies. This conclusion is followed with
the observation that contention of the banks in this behalf has been
accepted. In spite thereof, in the very next line of paragraph 34, it is
observed:
“34... Significantly, what follows is that reservation is provided in
promotion by selection qua those posts which carry an ultimate salary of
less than ?5,700 per month (pre-revised).”
It is clearly an error on the face of the record inasmuch as no such
consequence follows. In fact, the aforesaid quoted portion is directly in
conflict with not only the earlier portion of paragraph 34, but the entire
conclusion on the issue on which there is a detailed discussion from
paragraph Nos. 26 to 32 and even in earlier paragraphs of the judgment. It
is this error, which is apparent on the face of the record, viz. the
reservation is provided in promotion by selection respect of posts carrying
salary of less than ?5,700 per month, that has led to further error that
such reservation in the matter of promotion is applicable from Scale I
upward up to Scale VI. What constitutes an error apparent on the face of
the record is explained in State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Surendra Mohnot &
Ors.[1], with the aid of an earlier judgment, in the following manner:
“25. To appreciate what constitutes an error apparent on the face of the
record, the observations of the Court in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v.
Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137, are useful: (AIR p.137)
“An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning
on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to
be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is
far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be
established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be
cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of
the superior court to issue such a writ.”
26. In the case at hand, as the factual score has uncurtained, the
application for review did not require a long-drawn process of reasoning.
It did not require any advertence on merits which is in the province of the
appellate court. Frankly speaking it was a manifest and palpable error. A
wrong authority which had nothing to do with the lis was cited and that was
conceded to. An already existing binding precedent was ignored. At a mere
glance it would have been clear to the Writ Court that the decision was
rendered on the basis of a wrong authority. The error was self-evident.
When such self-evident errors come to the notice of the Court and they are
not rectified in exercise of review jurisdiction or jurisdiction of recall
which is a facet of plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution, a grave miscarriage of justice occurs...”
The Court also made the following pertinent observations:
“28. We have already stated the legal position with regard to legal impact
as regards the concession pertaining to the position in law. That apart,
we think that an act of the Court should not prejudice anyone and the maxim
actus curiae neminem gravabit gets squarely applicable...”
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent employees could not dispute
the aforesaid error having been occurred. It is for this reason, the main
argument on the part of the counsel for the respondents was that insofar as
Union of India is concerned, review petition was not maintainable as it had
not challenged the judgment of the High Court. It was also argued that the
review petition filed by banks was against the public policy as there was
no adequate representation of SC/ST employees in the higher posts and by
not providing such a reservation, the Government was failing to subscribe
to the Constitutional spirit behind reservation provisions. Counsel also
endeavoured to argue that the appeals which were filed against the judgment
of the High Court themselves were not maintainable as a circular was issued
by the Union of India impressing upon the banks to follow the judgment of
the High Court.
The aforesaid arguments of learned counsel for the respondent employees
fail to cut any ice as there are not germane to the issue with which the
Court is concerned with in these review petitions. Even if the review
petition filed by the Union of India is to be discarded, that would be
immaterial inasmuch as the banks, which were the appellants, have also
filed the review petition on the same grounds and, therefore, this Court is
necessarily called upon to decide the issue at hand. Further, when an
error is pointed out and the Court also finds that there is an error
apparent on the face of the record, it would not shy away from correcting
that error.
We would be candid in our remarks that once an error is found in the
order/judgment, which is apparent on the face of record and meets the test
of review jurisdiction as laid down in Order XLVII Rule (1) of the Supreme
Court Rules, 2013 read with Order XLVII Rule (1) of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, there is no reason to feel hesitant in accepting such a
mistake and rectify the same. In fact, the reason for such a frank
admission is to ensure that this mind of patent error from the record is
removed which led to a wrong conclusion and consequently wrong is also
remedied. For adopting such a course of action, the Court is guided by
the doctrine of ex debito justitiae as well as the fundamental principal of
the administration of justice that no one should suffer because of a
mistake of the Court. These principles are discussed elaborately, though
in a different context, in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak[2].
We would also like to reproduce the following observations in S. Nagaraj v.
State of Karnataka[3]:
“18. Justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers. Neither the rules
of procedure nor technicalities of law can stand in its way. The order of
the Court should not be prejudicial to anyone. Rule of stare decisis is
adhered for consistency but it is not as inflexible in Administrative Law
as in Public Law. Even the law bends before justice. Entire concept of
writ jurisdiction exercised by the higher courts is founded on equity and
fairness. If the Court finds that the order was passed under a mistake and
it would not have exercised the jurisdiction but for the erroneous
assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetration shall result in
miscarriage of justice then it cannot on any principle be precluded from
rectifying the error. Mistake is accepted as valid reason to recall an
order. Difference lies in the nature of mistake and scope of
rectification, depending on if it is of fact or law. But the root from
which the power flows is the anxiety to avoid injustice. It is either
statutory or inherent. The latter is available where the mistake is of the
Court. In Administrative Law the scope is still wider. Technicalities
apart if the Court is satisfied of the injustice then it is its
constitutional and legal obligation to set it right by recalling its order.
Here as explained, the Bench of which one of us (Sahai, J.) was a member
did commit an error in placing all the stipendiary graduates in the scale
of First Division Assistants due to State's failure to bring correct facts
on record. But that obviously cannot stand in the way of the Court
correcting its mistake. Such inequitable consequences as have surfaced now
due to vague affidavit filed by the State cannot be permitted to continue.”
The argument of public policy pressed by the respondents is of no avail.
We are conscious of the fervent plea raised by the respondent employees
that employees belonging to SC/ST category should be made eligible for
promotion by providing the reservation in the promotional posts as well, as
their representation is abysmally minimal. However, whether there is any
such justification in the demand or not is for the State to consider and
make a provision in this behalf. This was so recorded in the judgment
itself in the following manner:
“24. In the first instance, we make it clear that there is no dispute
about the constitutional position envisaged in Articles 15 and 16, insofar
as these provisions empower the State to take affirmative action in favour
of SC/ST category persons by making reservations for them in the employment
in the Union or the State (or for that matter, public sector/authorities
which are treated as State under Article 12 of the Constitution). The
laudable objective underlying these provisions is also to be kept in mind
while undertaking any exercise pertaining to the issues touching upon the
reservation of such SC/ST employees. Further, such a reservation can not
only be made at the entry level but is permissible in the matters of
promotions as wells. At the same time, it is also to be borne in mind that
Clauses 4 and 4A of Article 16 of the Constitution are only the enabling
provisions which permit the State to make provision for reservation of
these category of persons. Insofar as making of provisions for reservation
in matters of promotion to any class or classes of post is concerned, such
a provision can be made in favour of SC/ST category employees if, in the
opinion of the State, they are not adequately represented in services under
the State. Thus, no doubt, power lies with the State to make a provision,
but, at the same time, courts cannot issue any mandamus to the State to
necessarily make such a provision. It is for the State to act, in a given
situation, and to take such an affirmative action. Of course, whenever
there exists such a provision for reservation in the matters of recruitment
or the promotion, it would bestow an enforceable right in favour of persons
belonging to SC/ST category and on failure on the part of any authority to
reserve the posts, while making selections/promotions, the beneficiaries of
these provisions can approach the Court to get their rights enforced. What
is to be highlighted is that existence of provision for reservation in the
matter of selection or promotion, as the case may be, is the sine qua non
for seeking mandamus as it is only when such a provision is made by the
State, a right shall accrue in favour of SC/ST candidates and not
otherwise.”
Once we find an error apparent on the face of the record and to correct the
said error, we have to necessarily allow these review petitions.
In view of the foregoing, the review petitions are allowed by deleting
paragraph Nos. 33 to 36 of the judgment and the directions contained
therein, as well as the directions contained in paragraph No. 37. Instead,
after paragraph No. 32, following paragraph shall be inserted and numbered
as 33, and paragraph No. 38 should be re-numbered as 34:
“33. Result of the aforesaid discussion would be to allow these appeals
and set aside the judgment of the High Court. While doing so, we reiterate
that it is for the State to take stock of the ground realities and take a
decision as to whether it is necessary to make a provision for reservation
in promotions from Scale I to Scale II and upward, and if so, up to which
post. The contempt petition also stands disposed of.
34. In the peculiar facts of this case, we leave the parties to bear their
own costs.”
All the interlocutory applications for impleadment/intervention also stand
disposed of.
Before we part with, we would like to observe that we have mentioned in
para 15, which was also recorded in the main judgment, that the grievance
of the employees belonging to SC/ST category is that there is negligible
representation of employees belonging to their community in the officers'
category at all levels. Keeping in view the statistical figures which have
been placed on record showing their representation in officers' scales, it
would be open to the concerned authority, namely, the State and the Banks
to consider whether their demand is justified and it is feasible to provide
reservation to SC/ST category persons in the matter of promotion in the
officers' category and if so, upto which scale/level.
.............................................J.
(J. CHELAMESWAR)
.............................................J.
(A.K. SIKRI)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 08, 2016.
-----------------------
[1] (2014) 14 SCC 77
[2] (1988) 2 SCC 602
[3] 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 891 OF 2015
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 209 OF 2015
|CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR | |
|CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS. |…..PETITIONERS |
|VERSUS | |
|CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA SC/ST EMPLOYEES |…..RESPONDENTS |
|WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ORS. | |
W I T H
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 837 OF 2015
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 213 OF 2015
W I T H
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 892 OF 2015
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 211 OF 2015
W I T H
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 903 OF 2015
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 210 OF 2015
W I T H
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1104 OF 2015
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 212 OF 2015
A N D
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2131 OF 2015
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 209 OF 2015
J U D G M E N T
A.K. SIKRI, J.
By our judgment dated January 09, 2015, we had decided
batch of appeals which were preferred by the Union of India as well as
certain banks. In these appeals, the validity of the judgment of the High
Court of Madras was questioned which held that in the matter of promotions
in the officer grades, there shall be reservation provided for the officers
belonging to the Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) categories
working in these banks. This decision of the High Court was predicated on
the interpretation to the provisions of Office Memorandum (OM) dated August
13, 1997 issued by the Central Government, along with certain other
connected Office Memoranda. It was concluded by the High Court that the
aforesaid OM dated August 13, 1997 provides for such a reservation in
favour of the SC/ST employees. The plea of the appellant banks was that
the said OM does not make any provisions for reservation in respect of
SC/ST employees.
The question, therefore, that needed determination by this Court was as to
whether there is any reservation in the promotions from one officer
grade/scale to higher grade/scale, when such promotions are to be made on
selection basis, i.e. on merits. The position taken by the appellant banks
was that there is no rule of reservation for promotion in Class-A (Class-I)
to the post/scales having basic salary of more than ?5,700 per month and OM
dated August 13, 1997 at best provides only a concession in the manner
officers belonging to SC/ST category are to be considered for promotion.
After hearing the counsel for the parties, judgment dated January 09, 2015
was rendered. Provisions of OM dated August 13, 1997 and other related
Office Memoranda were considered by this Court in that judgment. This
Court, after interpreting the said OM, came to the conclusion that this OM
did not provide for any reservation. Operative portion of the judgment in
arriving at the aforesaid conclusion reads as under:
“26. While considering this question, we have to keep in mind that
reservation policy of the Central Government is applicable to the appellant
Banks. It is the common case of both the parties. In fact, as already
noted above, there is a specific provision to this effect in the promotion
policies framed by the appellant Banks.
27) Next thing which is to be kept in mind is the two office memoranda,
one dated 1.11.1990 and the other dated 13.8.1997, which are referred to by
the counsel for the parties. We have already reproduced the aforesaid two
office memoranda. Insofar as, Office Memorandum dated 1.11.1990 is
concerned, a bare reading of this provision would reflect the following two
aspects:
(a) In promotion by selection within Class-I (Group-A) post, the SC/ST
candidates are to be given 'concession'.
(b) This concession is available to those SC/ST employees who are senior
enough in the zone of consideration for promotion so as to be within the
number of vacancies for which select list has to be drawn up.
Thus, first requirement is that such SC/ST candidates who come
within the zone of consideration for promotion are senior enough to be
within the number of vacancies. Once they come within the aforesaid zone
of consideration, they have to be included in the list, provided they are
not considered unfit for promotion. It clearly follows from the above that
once they come under the zone of consideration for promotion so as to be
within the number of vacancies for which select list has to be drawn up,
for such SC/ST employees the only embargo to deprive them of promotion is
when they are found unfit for promotion. For other officers in general
category, depending upon the rule of promotion, there may be much stricter
criteria based on comparative merit or selection by merit, etc. However,
in case of such senior enough SC/ST candidates, the criteria appears to be
seniority, subject to fitness.
(c) This OM specifically clears the doubt that the aforesaid provision is
only a concession and not reservation in favour of SC/ST candidates,
inasmuch as para 3 of the OM states that “It is hereby clarified that in
promotion by selection within Group-A post, which carry ultimate salary of
? 5,700/- per month, there is no reservation”. It is clear from the above
that insofar as Office Memorandum dated 1.11.1990 is concerned, there was
no provision for reservation made in favour of SC/ST candidates in
promotion by selection within Group-A posts carrying an ultimate salary of
?5,700 per month.
28) No doubt, this Office Memorandum was issued in the year 1990, that is
much before amendment in Article 16 of the Constitution, which was carried
out in the year 1995 by inserting Clause 4A. However, as already pointed
out above, Clause 4A is an enabling provision which empowers the State to
make reservations in the matter of promotions as well as in favour of SC/ST
employees. There was no such provision till 1.11.1990 in the matter of
promotion by selection within Group-A post which carry an ultimate salary
of ?5,700/- per month.
29) Having understood this, we come to Office Memorandum dated 13.8.1997
to find out as to whether this Memorandum makes any provision for
reservations in the matter of promotion in favour of SC/ST employees,
inasmuch as no other Office Memorandum or Circular or Rule, etc. is
produced on record for this purpose.
30) We have already noted above that a nine Judge Bench decision of this
Court in Indra Sawhney (supra) held that Clause 4 of Article 16 does not
cover the cases of promotion, meaning thereby, as per the said clause no
reservation in favour of SC/ST persons in the matter of promotions is
permissible. It is to nullify the effect of this dicta in the said
judgment that Clause 4A was inserted in Article 16 by Constitution's
Seventy-Seventh Amendment with effect from 17-06-1995. However, it is also
a matter of record that in Indra Sawhney's case (supra), this Court had
also clarified that reservation for SC/STs in promotion would continue for
a period of five years from 16-11-1992. What it meant was that if there is
a provision of reservation made in the matter of promotions,
notwithstanding the dicta in the said case that such a reservation is not
permissible, those provisions were allowed to continue for a period of five
years from 16-11-1992. Thereafter, before the expiry of five years,
constitutional provision was incorporated in the form of Clause 4A by
making provision for reservation in the matter of promotions as well.
These facts are taken note of in first two paras of Office Memorandum dated
13-08-1997. Thereafter, in the 3rd para of the said Memorandum, it is
provided:
“3. In pursuance of Article 16(4A), it has been decided to continue the
Reservation in promotion as at present, for the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes in the services/posts under the Central Government beyond
15.11.1997 till such time as the representation of each of the above two
categories in each cadre reaches the prescribed percentages of reservation
whereafter, the reservation in promotion shall continue to maintain the
representation to the extent of the prescribed percentages for the
respective categories.”
31) What is decided is to continue the reservation in promotion, which was
prevalent at that time, for the SC/ST employees, which was to continue in
terms of the judgment of this Court in Indra Sawhney (supra) till 15-11-
1997, even beyond 15-11-1997, till such time as the representation of each
of the above two categories in each cadre reaches the prescribed
percentages of reservation whereof. It is, thus, crystal clear from a bare
reading of this para that the existing provision relating to reservation in
promotion was allowed to continue beyond 15-11-1997. Thus, this Memorandum
did not make any new provision for reservation in promotion in favour of
SC/ST employees.
32) We have already noticed above that in matters of promotion within Group-
A posts, which carry an ultimate salary of ?5,700/- per month, there was no
provision for any reservation. On a conjoint reading of these two Office
Memorandums, in the absence of any other provision or Rule evidencing such
a reservation in the matter of promotions, it cannot be said that there was
reservation in promotion within Group-A posts upto the ultimate salary of
?5,700/- per month. The High Court in the impugned judgment has gone by
the lofty ideals enshrined in Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution as
well as the fact that in these Banks there is no adequate representation of
SC/ST category of officers in Group-IV and above. That may be so. It can
only provide justification for making a provision of this nature. However,
in the absence of such a provision, same cannot be read by overstretching
the language of Office Memorandum dated 13-08-1997. It is for the State to
take stock of the ground realities and take a decision as to whether it is
necessary to make provision for reservation in promotions to the aforesaid
post as well.”
As pointed out above, since the main issue that had arisen for
consideration stood answered in favour of the appellant banks, in normal
course, the appeals should have been allowed reversing the judgment dated
December 09, 2009 rendered by the High Court. However, during the course
of the arguments, the respondent employees had produced copy of OM dated
November 08, 2004 issued by the Department of Enterprises, as per which the
salary limit of ?5,700 mentioned in the OM dated August 13, 1997, was
treated as equivalent to ?18,300 on the implementation of the Fifth Central
Pay Commission Report in respect of those public sector undertakings which
were following the Central Pay pattern and in the case of public sector
undertakings following Industrial Dearness Allowance (IDA) pattern,
monetary ceiling was fixed as ?20,800. On that basis, this Court proceeded
further to discuss that aspect with the observation that the High Court had
failed to consider the same. Discussing this aspect, this Court held that
even when there was no policy of reservation for the post carrying pay-
scale of more than ?5,700 per month, the reservation was there in respect
of the post carrying basic pay of upto ?5,700 per month and with the
implementation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission Report, it would follow
that such reservation was applicable to the post carrying pay-scale of
?18,300. On that basis, it was held that since pay-scale of the posts upto
Scale VI was ?18,300, insofar as promotions from Scale I to Scale II, Scale
II to Scale III, Scale III to Scale IV, Scale IV to Scale V and Scale V to
Scale VI are concerned, reservation is to be provided. It is this
direction/portion of the judgment in respect of which the instant review
petitions are filed. Thus, it would be apt to reproduce the discussion
touching upon this aspect in the judgment. The same reads as under:
“33. Having said so, one other aspect which has to be necessarily
addressed to at this stage calls for our attention. This aspect, which we
are going to point out now, has been totally glossed over by the learned
Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court in their
respective judgments.
34. It is provided in Office Memorandum dated 01-11-1990, and we have
repeatedly stated above, that there is no reservation in promotion by
selection within only those Group-A posts which carry an ultimate salary of
?5,700/- per month. In such cases, it is only concession that applies. We
have accepted the contention of the appellant Banks in this behalf, as per
the discussion contained hereinabove. Significantly, what follows is that
reservation is provided in promotion by selection qua those posts which
carry an ultimate salary of less than ?5,700/- per month (pre-revised).
35. The Department of Public Enterprises had issued an Office Memorandum
dated 08-11-2004 as to the salary limit of ?5,700/- mentioned for the
purposes of reservation as ?18,300/- (5th Central Pay Commission) and in
the case of Public Sector Undertakings who are following Industrial
Dearness Allowance (IDA) pattern, the monetary ceiling was fixed as
?20,800/- (from 01-01-1996, i.e. 5th Central Pay Commission). The said pay
ceiling is achieved in the appellant Banks only when an officer reaches
Scale-VII. As a fortiorari, the policy of no reservation in the matter of
promotion is applicable only from Scale-VII and above. It, therefore,
clearly follows that insofar as promotion from Scale-I to Scale-II, Scale-
II to Scale-III, Scale-III to Scale-IV, Scale-IV to Scale-V, Scale-V to
Scale-VI are concerned, reservation is to be provided. The appellant
Banks, therefore, cannot take umbrage under the aforesaid Memorandum and
deny reservation in favour of SC/ST employees while carrying out promotions
upto to Scale-VI.
36. Upshot of the aforesaid discussion would be to allow these appeals
party. While setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court to the
extent it holds that Office Memorandum dated 13-08-1997 makes a provision
for reservation, it is clarified that at present there is no provision for
reservation in promotion by selection only in respect of those posts which
carry an ultimate salary of ?5,700/- per month (revised to ?18,300/- by 5th
Central Pay Commission and ?20,800/- per month in respect of those Public
Sector Undertakings following IDA pattern). Qua appellant Banks, that
would be in respect of Scale-VII and above. Therefore, to carry out
promotions from Scale-I upwards upto Scale-VI, reservation in promotion in
favour of SC/ST employees has to be given. It would have the effect of
allowing the writ petitions filed by the respondents/unions partly with
directions to the appellant Banks to make provision for reservations while
carrying out promotions from Scale-I to to Scale-II and upward upto Scale-
VI.
(emphasis supplied)”
Review petitions are filed by the Union of India as well as certain banks
which were parties to the appeals. In these review petitions, applications
for intervention/impleadment are filed by Indian Banks' Association
supporting the plea taken in the review petitions. On the other hand, All
India Central Bank SC/ST/OBC Employees Association-Kolkata, Bank of
Maharashtra SC/ST & OBC Employees' Association-Pune and State Bank of
Travancore SCs & STs Welfare Association have also filed applications for
intervention/impleadment with intent to oppose the review petitions.
Notice was issued to the respondent-employees/associations in these review
petitions. They have filed their counter affidavits to the review
petitions. We have heard counsel for all the parties before us. It was
also pleaded by the counsel on either side that since the issue raised in
the review petitions has bearing on the merits of the case, the issue
raised itself be finally decided.
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General appearing for the Union of
India, submitted that a fundamental error, which was an error apparent on
the face of the record, had crept in in paragraph 34 of the judgment
wherein it was observed that reservation is provided in promotion by
selection qua those posts which carry an ultimate salary of less than
?5,700 (pre-revised). He pointed out that in the earlier portion of the
same paragraph (which is reproduced and highlighted above), this Court had
reiterated, after detailed discussion, that there is no reservation in
promotion by selection in Group-A posts which carry an ultimate salary of
?5,700 per month and in such cases it is only the concession that applies.
He further submitted that in such a situation, OM dated November 08, 2005
issued by the Department of Enterprises, that too at the fag end of the
hearing of the appeals, had no relevance at all. He further submitted that
promotions were only up to Scale VI in these banks as the hierarchical
structure would reveal that Scale VII and above were in fact Board level
posts which are filled up by the Government and not by the Departmental
Promotion Committee of the concerned banks. In this manner, he argued that
in spite of deciding the main issue against the respondents, because of the
aforesaid error in the judgment, the said benefit was still bestowed by
giving reservations to the officers belonging to SC/ST category from Scale
I to Scale VI. He further demonstrated that in these banks, there were
four categories of employees, namely, sub-staff (Class IV), clerical,
officers and Board level posts. The promotions were provided from sub-
staff to clerical as well as from clerical to junior management grade
(Scale-I). However, there was no further promotion from Scale-I upward.
The learned Attorney General further argued that the entire case of the
respondent employees was based on OM dated August 13, 1997 and relying upon
the same, the respondent employees had argued that this OM provides for
reservation. However, this precise contention of the employees was
specifically turned down and repelled by this Court by interpreting the
said OM to mean that it does not provide for any reservation, but only
gives certain concessions to the employees belonging to SC/ST categories
while considering their cases for promotion. As a consequence, no further
discussion was required.
We find adequate force in the aforesaid submission of the learned Attorney
General. We have already reproduced those paragraphs of the judgment, i.e.
paragraph Nos. 26 to 32, wherein after interpreting OM dated August 13,
1997, it is categorically held that this OM does not provide for any
reservation. This is so stated in the opening lines of paragraph 34 as
well by emphasizing that there is no reservation in promotion by selection
within Group-A posts, which carry an ultimate salary of ?5,700 per month
and it is only concession that applies. This conclusion is followed with
the observation that contention of the banks in this behalf has been
accepted. In spite thereof, in the very next line of paragraph 34, it is
observed:
“34... Significantly, what follows is that reservation is provided in
promotion by selection qua those posts which carry an ultimate salary of
less than ?5,700 per month (pre-revised).”
It is clearly an error on the face of the record inasmuch as no such
consequence follows. In fact, the aforesaid quoted portion is directly in
conflict with not only the earlier portion of paragraph 34, but the entire
conclusion on the issue on which there is a detailed discussion from
paragraph Nos. 26 to 32 and even in earlier paragraphs of the judgment. It
is this error, which is apparent on the face of the record, viz. the
reservation is provided in promotion by selection respect of posts carrying
salary of less than ?5,700 per month, that has led to further error that
such reservation in the matter of promotion is applicable from Scale I
upward up to Scale VI. What constitutes an error apparent on the face of
the record is explained in State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Surendra Mohnot &
Ors.[1], with the aid of an earlier judgment, in the following manner:
“25. To appreciate what constitutes an error apparent on the face of the
record, the observations of the Court in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v.
Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137, are useful: (AIR p.137)
“An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning
on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to
be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is
far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be
established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be
cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of
the superior court to issue such a writ.”
26. In the case at hand, as the factual score has uncurtained, the
application for review did not require a long-drawn process of reasoning.
It did not require any advertence on merits which is in the province of the
appellate court. Frankly speaking it was a manifest and palpable error. A
wrong authority which had nothing to do with the lis was cited and that was
conceded to. An already existing binding precedent was ignored. At a mere
glance it would have been clear to the Writ Court that the decision was
rendered on the basis of a wrong authority. The error was self-evident.
When such self-evident errors come to the notice of the Court and they are
not rectified in exercise of review jurisdiction or jurisdiction of recall
which is a facet of plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution, a grave miscarriage of justice occurs...”
The Court also made the following pertinent observations:
“28. We have already stated the legal position with regard to legal impact
as regards the concession pertaining to the position in law. That apart,
we think that an act of the Court should not prejudice anyone and the maxim
actus curiae neminem gravabit gets squarely applicable...”
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent employees could not dispute
the aforesaid error having been occurred. It is for this reason, the main
argument on the part of the counsel for the respondents was that insofar as
Union of India is concerned, review petition was not maintainable as it had
not challenged the judgment of the High Court. It was also argued that the
review petition filed by banks was against the public policy as there was
no adequate representation of SC/ST employees in the higher posts and by
not providing such a reservation, the Government was failing to subscribe
to the Constitutional spirit behind reservation provisions. Counsel also
endeavoured to argue that the appeals which were filed against the judgment
of the High Court themselves were not maintainable as a circular was issued
by the Union of India impressing upon the banks to follow the judgment of
the High Court.
The aforesaid arguments of learned counsel for the respondent employees
fail to cut any ice as there are not germane to the issue with which the
Court is concerned with in these review petitions. Even if the review
petition filed by the Union of India is to be discarded, that would be
immaterial inasmuch as the banks, which were the appellants, have also
filed the review petition on the same grounds and, therefore, this Court is
necessarily called upon to decide the issue at hand. Further, when an
error is pointed out and the Court also finds that there is an error
apparent on the face of the record, it would not shy away from correcting
that error.
We would be candid in our remarks that once an error is found in the
order/judgment, which is apparent on the face of record and meets the test
of review jurisdiction as laid down in Order XLVII Rule (1) of the Supreme
Court Rules, 2013 read with Order XLVII Rule (1) of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, there is no reason to feel hesitant in accepting such a
mistake and rectify the same. In fact, the reason for such a frank
admission is to ensure that this mind of patent error from the record is
removed which led to a wrong conclusion and consequently wrong is also
remedied. For adopting such a course of action, the Court is guided by
the doctrine of ex debito justitiae as well as the fundamental principal of
the administration of justice that no one should suffer because of a
mistake of the Court. These principles are discussed elaborately, though
in a different context, in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak[2].
We would also like to reproduce the following observations in S. Nagaraj v.
State of Karnataka[3]:
“18. Justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers. Neither the rules
of procedure nor technicalities of law can stand in its way. The order of
the Court should not be prejudicial to anyone. Rule of stare decisis is
adhered for consistency but it is not as inflexible in Administrative Law
as in Public Law. Even the law bends before justice. Entire concept of
writ jurisdiction exercised by the higher courts is founded on equity and
fairness. If the Court finds that the order was passed under a mistake and
it would not have exercised the jurisdiction but for the erroneous
assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetration shall result in
miscarriage of justice then it cannot on any principle be precluded from
rectifying the error. Mistake is accepted as valid reason to recall an
order. Difference lies in the nature of mistake and scope of
rectification, depending on if it is of fact or law. But the root from
which the power flows is the anxiety to avoid injustice. It is either
statutory or inherent. The latter is available where the mistake is of the
Court. In Administrative Law the scope is still wider. Technicalities
apart if the Court is satisfied of the injustice then it is its
constitutional and legal obligation to set it right by recalling its order.
Here as explained, the Bench of which one of us (Sahai, J.) was a member
did commit an error in placing all the stipendiary graduates in the scale
of First Division Assistants due to State's failure to bring correct facts
on record. But that obviously cannot stand in the way of the Court
correcting its mistake. Such inequitable consequences as have surfaced now
due to vague affidavit filed by the State cannot be permitted to continue.”
The argument of public policy pressed by the respondents is of no avail.
We are conscious of the fervent plea raised by the respondent employees
that employees belonging to SC/ST category should be made eligible for
promotion by providing the reservation in the promotional posts as well, as
their representation is abysmally minimal. However, whether there is any
such justification in the demand or not is for the State to consider and
make a provision in this behalf. This was so recorded in the judgment
itself in the following manner:
“24. In the first instance, we make it clear that there is no dispute
about the constitutional position envisaged in Articles 15 and 16, insofar
as these provisions empower the State to take affirmative action in favour
of SC/ST category persons by making reservations for them in the employment
in the Union or the State (or for that matter, public sector/authorities
which are treated as State under Article 12 of the Constitution). The
laudable objective underlying these provisions is also to be kept in mind
while undertaking any exercise pertaining to the issues touching upon the
reservation of such SC/ST employees. Further, such a reservation can not
only be made at the entry level but is permissible in the matters of
promotions as wells. At the same time, it is also to be borne in mind that
Clauses 4 and 4A of Article 16 of the Constitution are only the enabling
provisions which permit the State to make provision for reservation of
these category of persons. Insofar as making of provisions for reservation
in matters of promotion to any class or classes of post is concerned, such
a provision can be made in favour of SC/ST category employees if, in the
opinion of the State, they are not adequately represented in services under
the State. Thus, no doubt, power lies with the State to make a provision,
but, at the same time, courts cannot issue any mandamus to the State to
necessarily make such a provision. It is for the State to act, in a given
situation, and to take such an affirmative action. Of course, whenever
there exists such a provision for reservation in the matters of recruitment
or the promotion, it would bestow an enforceable right in favour of persons
belonging to SC/ST category and on failure on the part of any authority to
reserve the posts, while making selections/promotions, the beneficiaries of
these provisions can approach the Court to get their rights enforced. What
is to be highlighted is that existence of provision for reservation in the
matter of selection or promotion, as the case may be, is the sine qua non
for seeking mandamus as it is only when such a provision is made by the
State, a right shall accrue in favour of SC/ST candidates and not
otherwise.”
Once we find an error apparent on the face of the record and to correct the
said error, we have to necessarily allow these review petitions.
In view of the foregoing, the review petitions are allowed by deleting
paragraph Nos. 33 to 36 of the judgment and the directions contained
therein, as well as the directions contained in paragraph No. 37. Instead,
after paragraph No. 32, following paragraph shall be inserted and numbered
as 33, and paragraph No. 38 should be re-numbered as 34:
“33. Result of the aforesaid discussion would be to allow these appeals
and set aside the judgment of the High Court. While doing so, we reiterate
that it is for the State to take stock of the ground realities and take a
decision as to whether it is necessary to make a provision for reservation
in promotions from Scale I to Scale II and upward, and if so, up to which
post. The contempt petition also stands disposed of.
34. In the peculiar facts of this case, we leave the parties to bear their
own costs.”
All the interlocutory applications for impleadment/intervention also stand
disposed of.
Before we part with, we would like to observe that we have mentioned in
para 15, which was also recorded in the main judgment, that the grievance
of the employees belonging to SC/ST category is that there is negligible
representation of employees belonging to their community in the officers'
category at all levels. Keeping in view the statistical figures which have
been placed on record showing their representation in officers' scales, it
would be open to the concerned authority, namely, the State and the Banks
to consider whether their demand is justified and it is feasible to provide
reservation to SC/ST category persons in the matter of promotion in the
officers' category and if so, upto which scale/level.
.............................................J.
(J. CHELAMESWAR)
.............................................J.
(A.K. SIKRI)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 08, 2016.
-----------------------
[1] (2014) 14 SCC 77
[2] (1988) 2 SCC 602
[3] 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595
