An employee who takes part in a promotion exercise cannot subsequently challenge the selection process simply because they failed to qualify, the Delhi High Court has ruled.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia dismissed an appeal by a 63-year-old State Bank of India employee seeking retrospective promotion, holding that courts cannot disrupt institutional selection processes based on the conjectures or surmises of unsuccessful candidates.
In its September 2 order, the bench upheld an April decision by a single judge, emphasizing that candidates who willingly undergo an evaluation cannot turn around and claim bad faith once rejected.
Plea Of Bad Faith Requires Strict Proof
The appellant, Sharwan Kumar Vigmal, represented himself before the court, alleging that the bank acted with mala fide intent and penalized him for previously pursuing litigation. He maintained that his more than 35 years of unblemished service entitled him to advancement.
The division bench rejected the contention, observing that allegations of bad faith are simple to make but difficult to substantiate. The judges held that Vigmal failed to establish any victimisation, material irregularity, or procedural defect on the part of the lender.
The court also ruled that the bank’s non-disclosure of his 2018-19 marks did not constitute valid grounds to invalidate the promotional exercise or demonstrate institutional bias.
Background Of The Promotion Dispute
Vigmal entered service with SBI in New Delhi in 1983 as a clerk-cum-typist. His grievance arose in 2017 when he was bypassed for promotion from middle management grade scale II to the next executive tier.
He initially approached the Delhi High Court, which issued a judgment on January 31, 2018, directing SBI to consider his candidature for back-dated promotion covering the 2016-17 and 2017-18 cycles during its upcoming 2018-19 exercise, provided he met the eligibility criteria under the applicable promotion policy.
While the bank’s rules mandated a written examination followed by an interview, Vigmal sought an exemption from the written test. The court turned down that waiver request.
Compliance With Court Directives
Vigmal proceeded to sit for the written test and attended the interview for the 2018-19 exercise. When SBI published its final list of successful candidates on May 15, 2018, his name was not included.
He then filed a petition contesting the final list, arguing that he should not have been compelled to appear for a written exam that was not administered during the 2017-18 cycle.
Addressing that argument, the division bench clarified that his participation in the written examination was in direct adherence to the court’s earlier January 2018 ruling. The bench concluded that SBI had properly evaluated his candidature for retrospective elevation in line with judicial directions, leaving no legal basis to interfere with the single judge’s dismissal of his plea.
