Vinod Kumar Agrawal, an employee with the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (SBBJ), had contended in his writ petition that his name had been wrongly excluded. The SBBJ opposed the petition, pleading that since two years had not elapsed from the time of previous appearance for selection, the respondent will be entitled to be called for interview.
A Division Bench, comprising Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Mukta Gupta, held in a judgment delivered last week that the employee had been wronged. The clause of the agreement, which requires a gap of two years, does not relate itself to the date of the previous chance taken, but to the date of “previous appearance” for selection, said the Bench.
A settlement arrived at between the associate banks of State Bank of India and the employees on June 28, 1994, had envisaged that the employees will be given three chances for promotion. It defined “chance” as actual appearance in the written test under groups A and B and in the interview under group D.
Mr. Agrawal had applied for the post in question in 2004, but did not attain requisite marks and was not promoted. He applied again in 2005, but did not appear in the interview. When he applied in 2007, he was not called for interview on grounds that two years had not passed since he was considered for promotion in 2005.
While the Single Judge held that Mr. Agrawal had not exhausted any chance in 2005 by not appearing at the interview, the Division Bench said on an appeal filed by SBBJ that the employee had been wronged, as the clause of the agreement requiring a gap of two years did not relate itself to the date of previous chance taken, but to the date of previous appearance for selection.
The Court dismissed the appeal of SBBJ and maintained the relief granted to the respondent. However, it said it was not upholding the reasoning given by the Single Judge.