The Bench of Justice Rahul Bharti while exercising its power of judicial review held the selection process initiated by the Respondent-J&K Bank under “Seniority-cum-Selectivity” channel with respect to non-IBPS Banking Associates, including the Petitioners, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

In the case at hand, the Petitioners, being Banking Associates in the Respondent Bank having participated in the promotion process initiated by the Bank to the post of Assistant Manager (JMGS-1) by virtue of “Career progression of Banking Associates for the position of Assistant Manager Cadre” scheme, had moved the court against the screening test they were subjected to which allegedly was not meant for them, and as a result they couldn’t qualify the same. 

As per the promotional policy of the Respondent Bank, the class of Banking-Associates has been divided into two sub-classes; one, which is to undergo promotion process under “Seniority-cum-Selectivity channel”, and the other which was considered for promotion as per the “Fast Track/Merit Channel”. In the first sub-class, there was a further classification between candidates having been appointed with qualification of IBPS examination, having seven (07) years of experience and the other was that of those Banking Associates who have 07 years of experience and came to be appointed without IBPS examination qualification. Furthermore, with respect to the second category (Fast Track/Merit Channel), a Banking Associate with 3 years of service was made eligible and no classification on the basis of IBPS/Non IBPS was made as was done in Seniority cum Selectivity channel, and the pool of eligibility for this class was to be created on the basis of merit obtained in a written test to be conducted by IBPS Mumbai. 

With respect to the “Seniority-cum-Selectivity Channel” for the non-IBPS Banking Associates to be considered for promotion, a mandatory eligibility screening written test (objective type) for participation in promotion process under Seniority-cum-Selectivity channel had been prescribed. Therefore, the (promotion) Policy provided for two pools of eligibility for promotion; one of 7 years Banking Associates to be made/prepared on the basis of seniority and the second of 3 years to be made prepared on the basis of written merit test to be conducted by IBPS Mumbai.

The issue before the Court was that despite belonging to two different pools of eligibility, the Petitioners-Non-IBPS Banking Associates falling in Seniority-cum-Selectivity Channel were subjected to the same written test as that of the Banking Associates belonging to Fast Track/Merit Channel. 

The Court while observing that the Respondent-Bank has gone squarely wrong in subjecting the petitioners to an unfair, arbitrary and discriminatory treatment by making them to suffer a written test not meant for them thereby condemning them as failure and looser in terms of their respective promotion claims and prospects under the Seniority-cum-Selectivity Channel, delved into the scheme of promotion of the Respondent-Bank in detail to mark the distinction between the non-IBPS Banking Associates belonging to Seniority-cum-Selectivity Channel and the Banking Associates belonging to Fast Track/Merit Channel. The Court observed that there is an apparent inherent fallacy in the stand of the respondent-Bank that by same common written test, non-IBPS Banking Associates with seven (7) plus years of service and Banking Associate with three (3) plus years of service under the Policy are to qualify by earning base level percentage to earn entry in the respective pools under two different channels.

It noted, “If that is to be so, then a non-IBPS Banking Associate with seven (7) years plus of service upon qualifying the same very written test would have his/her both hands full in terms of his/her promotion aspect as he/she can figure in the Seniority-cum-Selectivity channel and simultaneously under Fast-Track/Merit channel and thereby would be eating away the prospect of his/her colleague Banking Associate with three (3) plus years’ service having qualified the same written test in the sense that in the Fast-Track/Merit channel, APAR is also of 30 marks, Interview/Potential is of 60 marks, Additional Qualification is also of 10 marks as is for Seniority-cum-Selectivity channel appraisal.”

The Court further observed, “The very fact that with respect to the Seniority-cum-Selectivity Channel, Written Test (online) is mentioned to be not applicable whereas with respect to Merit/Fast Track Channel the expression “qualifying only,” is emphasizing the essence of the written test being a real fire test to qualify for jump promotion and obviously the said fire test is not meant to be a walkover for Fast-Track/Merit channel Banking Associates aspiring for promotion by jumping the queue ahead of their senior Banking Associates, IBPS or non-IBPS, with seven (7) plus years of service.” Thus holding that the respondent-Bank cannot say that Seniority-cum-Selectivity Channel and Fast-Track/Merit channel are prone to the same written test for earning the qualification for consideration for promotion though under the respective two channels.

Thus, the Court disposed off the Writ Petition, directing respondent- J&K Bank to consider the petitioners and similarly placed non IBPS Banking Associates with seven (7) plus years of service for promotion as per assessment envisaged in the Policy to the next post with or without subjecting them to a screening written test (objective type) at its discretion given the fact of number of available promotion posts more and the total number of Banking Associates , IBPS and non-IBPS, less.