ALL INDIA STATE BANK OFFICERS FEDERATION AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

ALL INDIA STATE BANK OFFICERS FEDERATION AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the discontinuation of a limitation on the zone of consideration for promotion, revision of eligibility, and marks for interview under the 1989 policy was neither arbitrary nor illegal. The changes were realistic, enabled fair competition among eligible officers, and aimed to select the best talent. Mala fide allegations were unsupported, and the absence of a uniform appraisal system did not result in discrimination. The prescribed marks for interview were reasonable for executive posts. False statements by a petitioner in affidavits warranted costs and strictures, but prosecution was not ordered due to practicality.

Parties
Petitioner: All India State Bank Officers Federation; Respondent: Union of India
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 September 1996
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition / Final Disposition
Outcome
Petitions dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Promotion Policy, Eligibility Norms, Zone of Consideration, Appraisal System, Mala Fide Allegations, Judicial Strictures
Service Law Banking Law Constitutional Law Promotion Policy Eligibility Norms Zone of Consideration Appraisal System Mala Fide Allegations +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

All India State Bank Officers Federation

Petitioner

Union of India

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition / Final Disposition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Validity of discontinuing limitation on the zone of consideration for promotion
  2. 2 Legality and fairness of changes to the eligibility norms for promotion
  3. 3 Applicability of Ministry of Finance guidelines to State Bank of India

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the discontinuation of a limitation on the zone of consideration for promotion, revision of eligibility, and marks for interview under the 1989 policy was neither arbitrary nor illegal. The changes were realistic, enabled fair competition among eligible officers, and aimed to select the best talent. Mala fide allegations were unsupported, and the absence of a uniform appraisal system did not result in discrimination. The prescribed marks for interview were reasonable for executive posts. False statements by a petitioner in affidavits warranted costs and strictures, but prosecution was not ordered due to practicality.

Court Disposition

Petitions dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Petition dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 20,000; Rs. 10,000 to be paid personally by the then President of Federation.
  • Writ Petition No. 1260 of 1989 also dismissed for reasons stated in the principal petition.