Quota in Promotion

HC quashes UP govt order related to SC,ST quota in promotions

In a setback to Uttar Pradesh government, the Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court quashed its order providing reservation in promotions to state employees belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes.

A bench comprising justices Pradip Kant and Rituraj Awasthi pronounced the judgement while disposing of 50 writ petitions challenging the 'UP government servants seniority rules (3rd) amendment 2007' whereby the state government had inserted Rule 8A.

The court quashed all seniority lists prepared by the various departments under the provision which provided for consequential seniority along with promotion for the SC/ST employees.

The court has also directed the government and various departments to make fresh seniority lists in accordance with law.

"We further clarify that in case the state government decided to provide reservation in promotion to any class or classes of posts in the services under the state, it is free to do so after undertaking the exercise as required under the constitutional provisions, keeping in mind the law laid down in the M Nagaraj case," the bench said.

Petitioners counsel Vivek Raj Singh s

aid that the court has held that reservation cannot be provided in promotions to government employees and the "original seniority should be taken into account for it".

All the petitioners in the case belonged to the general category, Singh added.

In M Nagaraj case, the Supreme Court has held, "...the State is not bound to make reservation for SCs/STs in matters of promotions. However, if they wish to exercise their discretion and make such provision, the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment in addition to compliance with Article 335.

"It is made clear that even if the State has compelling reasons, as stated above, the State will have to see that its reservation provision does not lead to excessiveness so as to breach the ceiling limit of 50 per cent or obliterate the creamy layer or extend the reservation indefinitely," it had said.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/hc-quashes-up-govt-order-related-to-sc-st-quota-in-promotions/733323/2

HC asks banks to have quota at officer level

TNN Dec 11, 2009, 04.05am IST

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-12-11/chennai/28112080_1_reservation-promotions-banking-sector

CHENNAI: Recommending representation for SC/ST officers in the higher echelons of nationalised banks, the Madras High Court has directed at least five nationalised banks to follow the rule of reservation for promotion of SC/ST candidates to officer ranks. A division bench comprising Justice Elipe Dharma Rao and Justice CT Selvam, citing a central government memo dated August 13, 1997, said: "When the Constitution has given an extra protection to the underprivileged communities so as to ensure equal opportunities as guaranteed by the Constitution, the banks are not justified in sleeping over the matter of providing reservations in promotions for a decade with no good reason to offer."

The petitions and appeals were filed by the SC/ST employees associations of various nationalised banks, seeking a direction to the banks to provide reservation in promotions to officers from scale I to scale VII as per the instructions issued by the Centre.

The banks, however, said promotion to officer grade is on the basis of merit-cum-seniority, to which reservation policy cannot be made applicable. They claimed that reservation is applicable only in the first instance where promotion is from the clerical grade to the lowest rank in the officer grade. The rule of reservation will not apply even to the next scale of middle management level in scale II position, they said. They also argued that the efficiency of administration of banks would suffer if the reservation policy is followed.

Rejecting the arguments, Justice Dharma Rao, writing the judgment for the bench, said: "We are unable to understand such a sweeping and generalised argument advanced on the part of the banks, as if all the employees belonging to these underprivileged classes are inefficient and not suitable for promotion. When the Union of India has directed the banks to follow the rule of reservation in promotions in all cadres, as early as in the year 1997, there is no impediment for the banks to implement the same. However, for no better reason to be appreciated, the banks are adamant in not implementing the office memo."

Citing the bleak picture of only a very few SC/ST officers occupying high positions, the bench said, "this defeats the very purpose of reservation enshrined in the Constitution. We must remember that even the SC/ST candidates, who are now serving in officer cadres, have been promoted only by virtue of their long service and merit and not by availing themselves of the rule of reservation in promotions, as has been provided for under Article 16(4A) of the Constitution."

It then directed the banks to implement the rule of reservation for promotions to all cadres in the banking sector, within eight weeks.

Govt diktat on SC/ST quota rankles PSU banks

Atmadip Ray, ET Bureau Mar 12, 2010, 03.37am IST

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2010-03-12/news/27627603_1_public-sector-banks-psbs-psu-banks

KOLKATA: The long pending issue of reservation for scheduled castes (SCs) and scheduled tribes (STs) in the country's public sector banks (PSBs) is back on centrestage. The Centre has just asked all PSBs to follow a reservation policy for SC/STs at all officers' categories which has rankled banking circles. The government's direction was induced by a Madras High Court judgement, which asked five public sector banks including Canara Bank, Uco Bank and Union Bank of India to follow the reservation rule.

According to a government order, PSBs need to promote at least 15% SC and 7.5% ST candidates at all officers' levels from Scale I (probationary officer) to Scale VII (general manager). "As the government issued a general notification following a Madras High Court ruling, all banks will have to adhere to the direction," a senior official at Union Bank of India told ET.

Senior officials at various banks feel that such a reservation may be largely counter-productive. So much so, banks have already moved the Supreme Court looking for a stay order against the High Court ruling. The case will be up for hearing on March 15.

Such a hullabaloo over the reservation issue has the potential to throw PSBs' promotion exercise and manpower management out of gear. The issue resurfaced at a critical time when PSBs are saddled with manpower crunch at senior levels amid exodus due to retirement.

When contacted, Canara Bank CMD AC Mahajan refused to comment on the issue saying: "I don't want to comment on this as my bank was impacted. I want to remain away from the controversy." Reservation for SCs and STs in matters of promotion at all government agencies started way back in 1997 following a Constitutional amendment (77th amendment).

Consequently, PSBs started follow the reservation policy when clerical cadres get promoted to officers' level. But these banks never followed reservation policy for promotions within officers' level. However, they used to follow a policy called 'zone of consideration', which translate into favourable treatment for SCs and STs at time of promotion up to scale III.

Habitual Absence

Habitual absence from work without leave is misconduct: HC

Mumbai, Dec 29 (PTI)

In a significant judgement, the Bombay high court has held that habitual absence from work place without taking leave or giving prior intimation amounts to misconduct on the part of employee.

"We are of the view that an employee who is in habit of remaining absent without prior sanction of leave, irrespective of the number of days, is guilty of misconduct under the rules," observed a division bench recently while upholding dismissal of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd employee, Pandurang Kevne, who filed a petition challenging his removal.

Justices J N Patel and R P Sondurbaldota further observed, "In our opinion the reason for such misconduct is because it exhibits irresponsibility and lack of interest in work. It is writ large on the facts of the case that the petitioner is least interested in duty."

The Bench referred to Rule 3 of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which requires that a government servant must at all time maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty.

A person who is in the habit of remaining absent without prior sanction of leave and remains absent for a long period of more than 10 days without leave or intimation, is not somebody who is devoted to duty or maintains integrity. The petitioner's conduct needs to be tested on this anvil, the judges said. 

The petitioner was chargesheeted in 1997 for misconduct of absenteeism. An inquiry held him guilty and recommended his removal from service. He filed an appeal before an appellate authority but it was dismissed. A reference was made by the government to Industrial Tribunal which upheld the punishment. Being aggrieved, the petitioner moved the High Court.

The petitioner did not dispute that he was absent during the period stated in chargesheet. His counsel B P Jakhade submitted that the entire period during which the petitioner was absent from service had been validly explained by him and his absence from duty was regularised by the respondent company by sanctioning different types of leave.

Jakhade contended that the period of continuous absence between January 1995 and May 1996 had been regularised by sanctioning half pay leave of 30 days and the remaining as earned leave. The sanction was post facto dated June 14,1996.

The days of absence on other occasions were either single day or a couple of days but not exceeding 10 days. For these days, either casual leave or PL was allowed.

As regards the absence from August 1996 to December 1997, the petitioner said part of it was earned leave. The balance period was treated as "DiesNon" (period that is neither counted in service nor considered break in service) thereby, regularising the same without payment as permitted under the Leave Rules. 

Counsel for BSNL, A S Rao, argued that even if the petitioner's leave was regularised, he cannot escape from the rigours of mischief of misconduct because the leave was not authorised.

The court agreed with Rao that misconduct under the rules is habitual absence without leave or intimation for more than ten days.

"In our opinion, the reason why such conduct is made misconduct under the Rule is that it exhibits irresponsibility and lack of interest in work. Rule 3 of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 requires every Government servant to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty all the time.

Jakhade said since the entire period of absence had been validly explained, it cannot be regarded as misconduct under Rule 31 of Certified Standing Order and 3(i)(ii)(iii) of Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules.

However, the court said the decision of the Tribunal in holding the petitioner guilty of the misconduct alleged against him and upholding the punishment of removal from service is a correct decision.

"It is writ large on the facts of the case, that the petitioner is least interested in his duty. The petition therefore, deserves to be dismissed," it ruled.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/43834/banner-300x250.swf