NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9708 OF 2011

[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.1921 OF 2010]

PREM PARKASH PAHWA … APPELLANT

Versus

UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK  & ANR. … RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. This  appeal,  by  grant  of  special  leave,  is  directed  

against the judgment and order dated 25/8/2009 passed by  

the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissing Civil  Regular  

Second Appeal No.145 of 1986 filed by the appellant.

4. Respondent  1-Bank  holds  tests  for  promotion  to  the  

officers  grade.   It  has  framed  rules  for  examination  for  

promotion to the officer’s grade.  Under the rules, marks are  

awarded to written tests, interviews and qualifications, etc.  

The rules reflect the policy and procedure of respondent 1,  

inter alia, for promotion to the officer’s grade and, hence,  

are described as the ‘Promotion Policy’.  

5. The appellant, who is appearing in person, joined the  

service of respondent 1 in the year 1973 as a Stenographer  

in clerical cadre.  He passed his graduation in the year 1973  

from the Punjab University.  He obtained Diploma in Office  

Organization and Procedures in the year 1979 from the said  

university.   It is a ‘Post Graduate Diploma” recognized by  

the Academic Council of the Punjab University. Respondent  

1-Bank  conducted  examination  in  the  year  1979  for  

promotion to the officers grade.  According to the appellant,  

weightage of three (3) marks was given to him as per the  

Promotion Policy of respondent 1 for the year 1975, which  

2

was in vogue at that time as he had obtained Diploma in  

Office Organization and Procedures.  But, the appellant could  

not qualify in the said exam because he obtained less marks  

under  other  heads.  He  again  appeared  for  the  same  

examination on 17/1/1982.  His case is that  the Diploma  

granted by the Punjab University entitled him to weightage  

of three (3) marks as contemplated in Clause 3.1.2 (F)(d)(ii)  

of the 1981 Promotion Policy of respondent 1, which held  

the field at that time.  He was not given weightage of three  

(3)  marks  because  he  did  not  possess  ‘Post  Graduate  

Degree’.  The appellant, therefore, filed a suit for declaration  

that he is entitled to the weightage of three (3) marks as he  

possessed ‘Post Graduate Diploma’.  In view of Clause 3.1.2  

(F)(d)(ii) read with foot note (b) of Chapter (1) of the 1981  

Promotion Policy of respondent 1, the trial court decreed the  

suit and held that he was entitled to weightage of three (3)  

marks.  The lower appellate court set aside the said decree.  

The High Court upheld the order of lower appellate court.  

Hence, this appeal, by special leave.   

3

6. We have heard the appellant, at some length and also  

learned counsel for the respondents.   

7. We are concerned with interpretation of Clause 3.1.2  

(F)(d)(ii) read with foot note (b) of Chapter (1) of the 1981  

Promotion Policy of respondent 1.  For better appreciation of  

the appellant’s contention, it is also necessary to have a look  

at  the  relevant  provisions  of  the  Promotion  Policy  of  

respondent 1 of the years 1975, 1981 and 1988.  

8. Clause III B(4)(d) of Chapter 1 of Part I of the 1975  

Promotion Policy of respondent 1 reads as under :

“PART – I

CHAPTER 1 – PROMOTION TO OFFICER’S CADRE

III. PROMOTION TO THEBANK’S OFFICERS’ CADRE:

A. xxx xxx xxx

B. Written Test and Interview.

(1) xxx xxx xxx

(2) xxx xxx xxx

(3) xxx xxx xxx

4

(4) Allocation  of  the  marks  for  the  written  test,  interview, length of service and qualifications.  

Particulars Maximum  Marks  Allotted

(a) Written Test 25 (b) Interview 15 (c) Length  of  service  in  the  clerical  

cadre (2  marks  of  each  complete  –  see  Note  under  sub-para  (ii)  above- subject to a maximum of 40 marks).

40

(d) Qualifications: (i) Graduation from a recognized  

University 6 (ii) Institute  of  Bankers  

Examination : Part – I Part – II

3 6

(iii) Double graduation or Master’s  Degree,  from  a  recognized  University  or  a  Post-graduate  Diploma  of  a  recognized  University or Institute.

3

(iv) Graduation in commerce from  a  recognized  University  with  50%  or  over  of  average  marks.

2 20

……… ……… 100 ………

Thus, as per 1975 Promotion Policy, a person holding  

Post  Graduate  Diploma  of  a  recognized  university  or  

Institute was entitled to weightage of three (3) marks while  

5

considering  his  case  for  promotion  to  the  Bank  Officer’s  

Cadre.  

9. Clause 3.1.3 F(d) of the 1981 Promotion Policy reads as  

under:

“CHAPTER – I

1. PROMOTION TO OFFICER’S CADRE

2. xxx xxx xxx

3. Promotion to the Bank’s Officer’s Cadre:

3.1.1 xxx xxx xxx

3.1.2 xxx xxx xxx

3.1.3 (A) xxx xxx xxx

(B) xxx xxx xxx  

(C) xxx xxx xxx  

(D) xxx xxx xxx  

(E) xxx xxx xxx  

(F) Allocation  of  marks  for  the  written  test,  interview, length of service and qualifications shall be as  under :

Particulars Maximum  Marks  Allotted

(a) Written Test 40 (b) Interview 10

6

(c) Length  of  service  in  the  clerical  cadre (2 marks for each completed year of  service  -  see  Note  under  sub-para  (ii) of para 3.1.2 above, subject to a  maximum of 30 marks).

30

(d) Educational Qualifications: (i) Graduation from a recognized  

Universities 6 (ii) Post  Graduates/Double  

Graduates  from  recognized  Universities/Institutes.

3

(iii) Indian  Institute  of  Bankers  Examination :

Part – I   … Part – II   …

3 6

(iv) All  Honours  Graduates/Cost  Accountants  or  Graduates  /  Post  Graduates  having  50%  marks  or  more  in  the  aggregate.

2 20

Note: (a) No  candidate  would  get  more  than  20  marks for educational qualifications.  

(b) Degrees,  Diplomas  should  be  from  recognized  Universities/Boards  and  Institutes recognized by the Government of  India.

(c) In  proof  of  educational  qualifications  original  certificate  issued  by  appropriate  concerned  authorities  will  have  to  be  produced.  

Thus, from Clause 3.1.2(F)(d)(ii) of the 1981 Promotion  

Policy, the words ‘Post Graduate Diploma’ have been deleted  

but there is a reference to ‘Diploma’ in Note (b).   

7

10. Clause 3.6.1.(d) of the 1988 Promotion Policy reads as  

under :

“PART II

CHAPTER – 1

3. PROMOTION  FROM  CLERICAL  CADRE  TO  OFFICER’S CADRE IN BANK’S JUNIOR MANAGEMENT  GRADE SCALE–I.

3.1 xxx xxx xxx

3.2 xxx xxx xxx

3.3 xxx xxx xxx

3.4 xxx xxx xxx

3.5 xxx xxx xxx

3.6 MODE OF SELECTION :

3.6.1 Merit-cum-Seniority Channel:

Under  Merit-cum-Seniority  Channel,  there  will  be  assessment  of  100  marks  distributed  in  the  following  manner:

(a) Written test to be conducted by the  Institute  of  Banking  Personnel  Selection  (IBPS)  (model  questions/syllabus  will  be  given  before the test).

55 marks

(b) Service (2 marks for each completed  year  of  service  as  assessed  vide  para 3.4.3 above with a maximum  of 25 marks.)

25 marks

8

(d) Educational Qualification: 20 marks (i) Graduation from a recognized  

University 6 (ii) Post  Graduate/Double  

Graduate  from  recognized  University.

3

(iii) CAIIB  Examination  of  Indian  Institute of Bankers :

Part – I   … Part – II   …

3 6

(iv) Honours  Graduate  /  Graduate  /  Post  Graduate  from  recognized  University  having 50% marks or more in  the aggregate.

2 …. 20

Thus, the 1988 Promotion Policy keeps out ‘Diploma’  

holders.   It  is  stated by counsel  for  respondent  1  that  a  

‘Diploma’  holder  is  not  entitled to weightage of  three (3)  

marks as per this policy.  

11. The  appellant  pointed  out  that  he  is  concerned  with  

1981 Promotion Policy.  Though Clause 3.1.2(F)(d)(ii) of the  

1981  Promotion  Policy  states  that  only  Post  

Graduates/Double  Graduates  from  recognized  

Universities/Institutes are entitled to weightage of three (3)  

marks, Note (b) thereunder clarifies that Degrees, Diplomas  

9

should be from recognized Universities/Boards and Institutes  

recognized  by  the  Government  of  India.   Thus,  the  note  

explains  that  persons  holding  ‘Diploma’  from  recognized  

University/Board  and  Institute  would  be  entitled  for  

weightage of three (3) marks.  

12. Counsel  for  respondent 1 submitted that Note (b) to  

Clause  3.1.2(F)(d)(ii)  of  the  1981  Promotion  Policy  is  an  

inadvertent error.  The fact that from Clause 3.1.2(F)(d)(ii)  

of the 1981 Promotion Policy, the word ‘Diploma’ is excluded  

as an educational qualification, which was there in the year  

1975 Promotion Policy, indicates that the intention was not  

to give weightage of three (3) marks to ‘Diploma’ holders.  

It was pointed out that this argument is supported by the  

fact that in the 1988 Promotion Policy, a ‘Post Graduate’ or  

‘Double Graduate’ is entitled to the benefit of weightage of  

three (3) marks and Note (b) to Clause 3.1.2(F)(d)(ii) of the  

1981   Promotion   Policy   does   not  include  the  term  

‘Diploma’.  

10

13. It is not possible for us to accept the respondents’ case.  

We  have  already  quoted  the  relevant  provisions  of  1975  

Promotion Policy.  Under that policy, a ‘Double Graduate’ or  

a  person  holding  ‘Master’s  Degree’  from  a  recognized  

University  or  a  ‘Post  Graduate  Diploma’  of  a  recognized  

University or Institute was entitled to get weightage of three  

(3) marks.   Though from Clause 3.1.2(F)(d)(ii) of the 1981  

Promotion  Policy,  the  word  ‘Diploma’  of  a  recognized  

University  and  Institute  is  omitted,  Note  (b)  thereunder  

states  that  Degrees,  Diplomas should  be  from recognized  

Universities/Boards  and  Institutes  recognized  by  the  

Government of India. Note (b) cannot be dismissed as an  

inadvertent error.  It has a meaning.  It is not superfluous.  

Notes under the rules cannot control the rules but they can  

provide aid  for  interpretation  of  those rules.   It  must  be  

borne in  mind that  the  note in  the instant  case  is  made  

contemporaneously with the rules.  It is a part of the rule.  

It is not inconsistent with the rule but makes explicit what is  

implicit in the rule.   It is not as if by mistake Note (b) was  

11

lifted from 1975 Promotion Policy, because 1975 Promotion  

Policy did not contain any Note under Clause 3.1.2 (F)(d).  

Pertinently,  1988  Promotion  Policy,  inter  alia,  specifically  

states  that  ‘Post  Graduate’  or  ‘Double  Graduate’  of  a  

recognized university are entitled to weightage of three (3)  

marks, but in the Note under the said clause, there is no  

reference to ‘Diploma’.  Therefore, 1988 Promotion Policy, as  

stated  by  counsel  for  respondent  1,  clearly  keeps  the  

diploma holders out.  In the circumstance, we cannot view  

the word ‘Diploma’ found in Note (b) under Clause 3.1.2(F)

(d)(ii) of the 1981 Promotion Policy as a clerical mistake or  

inadvertent error and ignore it.  In our opinion, therefore,  

the  High  Court  was  clearly  in  error  in  holding  that  the  

intention  of  the  1981  Promotion  Policy  was  to  grant  

weightage of three (3) marks only to `Degree’ holders.   

14. Respondent 1-bank has urged in its written statement  

that  the  word  ‘Diploma’  mentioned  in  Note  (b)  could  be  

linked  to  Clause  3.1.2(F)(d)(iii)  which  refers  to  Indian  

Institute of Bankers’ Examination Part I and Part II.  Nothing  

12

prevented  the  rule  makers  from  making  it  clear  by  

specifically  linking the two.  We are informed that Indian  

Institute of Bankers has ‘Certificate courses’ and it also has  

‘Diploma courses’.  But, in the absence of clear statement to  

that effect  in Clause  3.1.2(F)(d)(iii),  it  is  not possible to  

arrive at this conclusion.   

15. In  our  opinion,  relevant  Clause  3.1.2(F)(d)(ii)  of  the  

1981 Promotion Policy is not happily worded or rather it is  

worded in  a  manner  which  would create  confusion  rather  

than help the aspirant.  In such a situation, in our opinion, it  

will have to be interpreted in favour of the appellant bearing  

in  mind the  fact  that  at  one  point  of  time,  as  per  1975  

Promotion Policy, he was, in fact, given weightage of three  

(3) marks as he possessed ‘Diploma in Office Organization  

and Procedures of a recognized university.  Unfortunately,  

he did not get the necessary marks under other heads and,  

hence, he could not get benefit of those three (3) marks.  

The appellant  has,  thereafter,  bona fide  prosecuted these  

proceedings since 1979.  The appellant joined respondent 1  

13

in the year 1973.   Considering the peculiar circumstances of  

this case, we think that interests of justice would be served  

if  weightage  of  three  (3)  marks  is  given  to  him  in  the  

examination conducted on 17/1/1982.   

16. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and  

order and hold that the appellant is entitled to weightage of  

three (3) marks while considering him for promotion to the  

Bank Officer’s Cadre in Officer’s Grade examination held in  

1982 in view of the fact that he possessed Post Graduate  

Diploma in Office Organization and Procedures from Punjab  

University,  Chandigarh,  which  is  a  recognized  University.  

The appeal is allowed.    

……………………………………………..J. (AFTAB ALAM)

……………………………………………..J. (RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI)

NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 14, 2011.

14