PREM PARKASH PAHWA Vs UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK AND ANR.UCO BANK
Bench: AFTAB ALAM,RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI
Case number: C.A. No.-009708-009708 / 2011
Diary number: 71 / 2010
Advocates: Vs
RAJESH SINGH
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
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