@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.@mdashAs the issues raised int he present petitions are similar, by this common judgment and order I propose to dispose of all the writ petitions.
2. The petitioners herein are officers of the Central Bank of India. They were promoted from MMG Scale-II to MMG Scale-III. It is an admitted fact that the post of MMG Scale-III is a selection post. While, however, promoting the petitioners herein from MMG Scale-II to MMG Scale-III, posting orders were also made by the respondents to various zones of India, which according to the petitioners are in total violation of the established norms and guidelines issued and followed by the bank in that regard. The petitioners herein, more particularly, have challenged the legality of the circular dated 5.5.99 issued by the respondent/bank whereby the bank has amalgamated two regions of Delhi Regions A and B to one region and also amalgamated two zones of Calcutta into one for placement purposes but leaving the Mumbai Central to continue to have two regions. It is stated that in view of the aforesaid discriminatory policy on the part of the respondent/bank in clubbing and amalgamating two regions of Delhi and Calcutta into one, but at the same time allowing the Mumbai Central to have two regions, not only discriminated the petitioners herein in the matter of their postings but the same has also resulted int he petitioners being posted to the far-flung areas entailing untold hardships and miseries to the said officers. it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the circular dated 5.5.99 is not only discriminatory and vocative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, but the same is also arbitrary and bad in law.
3. The Central Bank of India, which was established on 21.11.1911 has 3,105 branches all over the country. The organization set up of the bank, which has been framed by the bank for its administrative exigencies, is that its Central Office is situated is Mumbai. The entire country is divided into 16 zonal offices and each of such zonal office is further sub-divided into 77 regional offices. The present petitions involve orders of promotion and posting in the Delhi Zone and Calcutta Zone as compared to Mumbai Zone. The Delhi Zone earlier used to comprise of Delhi-A and Delhi-B Regions as also Kota and Jaipur, whereas the Calcutta had Calcutta-A including Calcutta North and Calcutta South, Siliguri, Bhubaneswar, Jalpaiguri and Durgapur. Whereas after issuance of the circular dated 5.5.99, the Delhi Zone has three regions, namely, Delhi Central, Kota and Jaipur instead of earlier four regions and the Calcutta North Region and Calcutta South Region were merged into one region and accordingly Calcutta Zone ever since 5.5.99 has five regions instead of earlier six regions for the purpose of promotion and posting. but Mumbai, however, continues to have the same regions even after issuance of the circular dated 5.5.99.
4. In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties sand for the purpose of enabling me to formulate the points for decision in this case, it would be necessary to give certain background facts of these writ petitions. The bank has 16 zonal offices and 77 regional offices. The 16 zonal offices are further sub-divided into 77 regional offices. The service of the officers in the bank is undoubtedly all India service as is evident from Regulation 47 of the Central Bank of India (Officers'' Service 1979) Regulation 47 reds as follows:-
"47. Transferability:- Every officer is liable for transfer to any office or branch of the bank or to any place in India."
5. As such the petitioners are liable to be transferred anywhere within India and to any branch of the bank. However, in spite of the aforesaid provisions, the respondent/bank has evolved regulation in respect of transfers in JMG Scale-I and MMG Scale-II and MMG Scale-III. The said norms/practice were laid down through circular issued from the central office on the matters of transfers of officers in MMG Scales II and III from time to time. Such norms/practice are laid down on administrative reasons having regard to the need of the organisation on the one hand and on the outcome of discussion with representatives/officers of the organisation on the other hand.
6. A circular was issued on 1.1.97 wherein consolidated promotion norms have been followed by the bank. Clause 1.1. of the said circular relates to general norms applicable to officers promoted from Scale I to II and Scale II to III. Clause 1.2.1. of the said circular specifies five categories such as physically handicapped including ladies etc. However, none of the petitioner falls under any of the aforesaid categories. Clause 1.2.2. thereof provides that officers promoted to MMG Scale II and Scale III shall be posted in the descending order of their age to any of the station and to any branch office within the zone but outside their present region to the extent of the available vacancies. it further provides that if vacancy is not available in the same zone, he/she may be posted to any zone preferably to nearest zone where vacancies remain unfilled. Clause 1.2.3. provides that the specialist category officers on their promotion to Scale II or III shall be posted anywhere in the zone even within the same region to the extent of the vacancies, if there are no vacancies available in the zone, they can be posted anywhere in the country. There can be a transfer on ''request also. Clauses 3.1.1. and 3.1.2. provide that Scale III officers after completion of a period of three years in one zone are eligible to apply for request transfer in the zone they desire.
7. It is stated in the writ petition that the respondent bank had made certain additions and amendments to the aforesaid circular by issuing a subsequent circular dated 27.10.98. Clause 5 of the said circular confirms that the norms would be applicable to both written channel and normal channel. The said circular amended clauses 1.2.1. and 1.2.3. of the earlier circular as follows:-
"Clause 1.2.1. was added as a new clause and it specified that the request transfer shall be considered first and the resultant vacancies shall be filled in by the promotee officers."
"Clause 1.2.3. was amended to the extent that a new provision relating to semi-urban and rural posting was added and it was specified that the promotees who were allowed to participate in the promotion process without completing the semi urban positing shall be posted to semi urban branches, either within the same zone and if he is a retainable officer as per his age or shall be posted preferably to nearby zone where the vacancies remained unfilled.
8. The respondent bank came out with another circular dated 5.5.99, which is the impugned circular in the present case. A copy of the said circular is placed on record as Annexure-D to the writ petition. The portions of the said circular having relevance to the facts and circumstances of the present case are extracted below:
"CO/PRS/R&P/99-2000/353 DT.5.5.99
FAX
Reg: Promotion Process Scale-II to Scale-III mainstream (1998)-placement in audit.
Ref: Our letter No. CO/PRS/R&P/99-2000/178 DT. 194.99 & our letter No. CO/PRS/R&P/99-2000/218 dt. 28.4.99.
1. Your urgent attention is invited to our above referred communications, especially on placement in Audit.
2. In this connection at the outset, we inform you that the total number of Scale III promotees posted in your zone includes the sanctioned vacancies of SIAs and Concurrent Auditors so as to fill up the vacancies in Audit. Accordingly, while filling the operations vacancies in Scale III, case may be taken so that adequate number may be posted in Audit including concurrent Auditors.
3. For the purpose of identification of officers for S.I.A. as stated in our letter dated 19.4.99 although identification has been done at Central Office level from the promotees, in the event of their not complying with the following placement criteria in addition to other edibility norms such as age, qualification etc., you may identify other suitable Scale-III officers from the existing or promotees but fulfilling the following criteria and consider them for posting to Audit and obtain prior approval from Central office by furnishing their bio-data.
ORDER OF PREFERENCE:-
(i) Officers who have come from outside the zone.
(ii) Officers who are from the Region other than the Region in which CIA''s office is situated.
(iii) Officer who is not from the same station where the CIA''s office is situated.
(iv) Officer from the same station where the CIA''s from the same station where the CIA''s office is situated but whose stay at the station is less than three years.
.....
.....
We reiterate that promotees and auditors are not to be posted in the same region. For this purpose, Delhi and Calcutta centre shall be treated as one region."
9. Mr. Chandhiok appearing for the petitioners submitted that the said policy under Circular dated 5.5.99 is not only arbitrary but the same is also bad and is also discriminatory and vocative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitutions of India. It was submitted that a bare perusal of the said circular would establish that the purpose of issuance of the said circular is to make it applicable only to the officers, who are promoted in Audit Branch and cannot be made applicable to all the officers like the petitioners. It was submitted that since the aforesaid circular was issued and meant only for Auditors, the respondent bank could not have adopted and implemented the contents of the said circular in respect of the promotees of other branches and on the basis thereof could not have posted the petitioners out of Delhi Zone in spite of availability of vacancies at the Delhi Zone. It was also submitted that the said action on the part of the respondent bank is in total violation of the consolidated norms issued vide circular dt. 1.197 and 27.10.98. It was submitted that the circular in question and its implementation are entirely discriminatory, arbitrary and malafide. It was also submitted that the impugned circular is addressed to the Zonal Manager only as is disclosed from the contents of the said circular, which establishes that it is an internal instruction to the Zonal Manager as to the placement in Audit and, Therefore, the same cold not have been used by the Central Office for the purpose of posting of the petitioners out of Delhi Zone.
10. During the course of his submission, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also sought to submit that the criteria as given in the 1.1.97 circular are not being followed in letter and spirit, for the petitioners are not being given their posting orders in the descending order of age of the officers. However, in respect of the same no particulars have been furnished in the writ petition and, Therefore, it was made clear to the counsel appearing for the petitioners during the course of arguments that it would not be possible to examine in the present case, the submission that the posting orders of the petitioners do not comply with the aforesaid criteria, namely, to be in the descending order of the age of the officers.
11. It was submitted by Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the respondent bank that since the petitioners are officers of the bank, they have an all India transfer liability in terms of Regulation 47 of the Central Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 and, Therefore, they cannot have any grievance in respect of any posting order made to them, for the petitioners could be posted anywhere in India in the administrative exigencies of service more so when they are promoted to the next higher post. He also submitted that the decision to merge the two regions is an administrative policy decision of the bank taken in the interest of administrative requirement and this court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not review the administrative policy decision of the respondent bank to merge the two regions, which is akin to merger of cadres, which is held by the Supreme Court as purely an administrative policy decision in respect of which the court would not give a direction to have a different policy. he also submitted that the policy to merge the two regions within Delhi Centre and Calcutta Centre cannot be said to be malafide inasmuch as the officers, who are affected by the said decision, would change every year and that in any event there is no malafide alleged against any individual officer. He also stated that no particulars of malafide have been alleged and without the same this court is not in a position to investigate upon as to whether there is any malafide involved. He also submitted that upon promotion there has to be a change of region and, Therefore, all the petitioners were liable to be transferred out of their region upon promotion. According to him the grievance raised is that if Delhi Region-A and Delhi Region-B were not merged they had a chance of transfer to other region of Delhi Centre, and would still be able to remain in Delhi Centre, which is akin to a contention that in the event of merger of cadres, the chance of promotion of a candidates stood diminished, which cannot be the subject matter of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as mere chances of promotion or transfer cannot be the basis of any challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He also vehemently submitted that the petitioner are estopped from challenging their transfer on promotion contained in their promotion-cum-posting letter since the petitioners have willingly participated in the promotion exercise in the year 1999-2000, which was also carried out on the identical basis insofar as the merger of the two regions of Delhi and Calcutta are concerned, as per the promotion exercise for the previous year 1998-99, which was never challenged by any of the officers of the bank. it was submitted by him that each of the individual petitioners in the present proceedings had willingly participated in the promotion exercise for the year 1999-2000 in terms of the promotion policy of the bank. In support of his contention he relied upon the application and letter of each of the petitioner for participating and appearing in the said promotion process duly filled in and signed by each of the petitioner. Relying on the same, submitted that the merger w.e.f. 5.5.99 was known to everybody including each of the petitioner and, Therefore, having accepted the same in 1998-99 and also by virtue of participation in the promotion process during the year 1999-2000, it is not open to any of the petitioners to turn around and challenge the same merely on account of the postings not being to their liking.
12. In the light of the aforesaid submissions of the counsel appearing for the parties, the principle issues that arise for my consideration in this writ petition are:-
(a) Whether the circular dated 5.5.99 issued from the Central Office of the respondent Bank is applicable only to the officers in the Audit Section and not to the promotees like the petitioners?
(b) Whether the impugned circular dated 5.5.99 is arbitrary and bad?
(c) Whether the impugned circular dated 5.5.99 is discriminatory and vocative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India?
(d) Whether there is wrong implementation of the placement norms and guidelines formulated by the bank vide its circular dt. 1.1.97 and 27.10.98?
(e) Whether the petitioners are estopped from challenging their transfer on promotion contained in the concerned promotion-cum-posting letter?
13. Let me now proceed to decide the issues as formulated above, that have arisen for my consideration and decision. it is true, as submitted by Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the bank, that all the petitioners have an All India transfer liability in terms of Regulation 47 of the Central Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979, for in accordance with the aforesaid regulation, the petitioners could be posted anywhere in India in the administrative exigencies of service, more so when they are promoted to the next higher post. There can be not two opinions in respect of the said position, but when the respondents have issued norms and guidelines laying down certain criteria for the officers promoted from MMG Scale-II to MMG Scale-III relating to their posting, norms and criteria laid down therein are required to be followed by the respondent bank. The question, Therefore, is to find out and determine as to whether while giving such orders of promotion from MMG Scale-II to MMG Scale-III and while issuing orders of posting to them, the petitioners are entitled to be retained in the Delhi Zone as per Clause 1.2.3 of existing norms/practice in respect of transfer in JMG Scale-I, MMG Scale-II and III and also as to whether preference is shown to one class of officers while denying the same to the other class of officers, thereby discriminating amongst similarly situated persons. I would , Therefore, now proceed to decide the issues that arise for my consideration which have been formulated above and the same are being disposed of issue wise.
14. The first issue, as framed above, which arises for my consideration, relates to interpretation of the contents and intents of the circular dt. 5.5.99. The said circular was issued from the central office of the respondent bank. It is true that the same is addressed to Zonal Manager, Zonal Offices of all zones, but ex facie it is also indicated from the contents to the said circular that the same deals with the promotion process from MMG Scale-II to MMG Scale-III. it was argued on behalf of the petitioners that the said circular dt. 5.5.99 is applicable only in respect of the Auditors and the same does nt relate to the promotees. However, when reference is made to the last para of the said circular, it is clear and apparent that the contents of the said circular were intended to be applicable to both the promotees and auditors, when it states that the promotees and auditors are not be posted int he same region and that for the said purpose Delhi and Calcutta Centres would be treated as one region. In order to appreciate the same, relevant portion of the said circular is extracted below:-
"We reiterate that promotees and auditors are not to be posted in the same region. For this purpose, Delhi and Calcutta Centres shall be treated as one region."
15. It is also clear from the said circular dated 5.5.99 that the same was issued in furtherance of the earlier circular dt. 19.4.99 and 28.4.99 as is mentioned in the circular dt. 5.5.99 itself. In this connection, it may also be mentioned that a doubt in the regard was also raised by the Delhi Zonal Office by order dt. 7.5.99, which is just two days subsequent to the issuance of the aforesaid circular making the following specific query:-
"1. Whether the above para pertains to promotee Auditors only or it pertains to all promotees for the placement of the operation side".
16. In response to the said query, the Central Office, by letter dt. 10.5.2000, clarified that the same relates to all promotees and also the auditors to be posted in Audit, when it stated thus:-
"Last para on page 3 of the FAX No. 353 dt. 5.5.99 pertains to Promotees and Auditors to be posted in Audit after 10.5.99."
17. It is, Therefore, evident from the contents and intents of the circular dt. 5.5.99 and also from other attending circumstances that the same was intended to apply both to the promotees and to the auditors. The intention expressed in the circular is clear and loud that both the categories of officers were liable to be transferred outside the region upon promotion. The contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner in that regard, Therefore, cannot be accepted and I hold that the said circular applied to all promotees and not merely to auditors as sought to be submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioners. Having held thus in respect of first issue, I may proceed to decide the remaining issues as framed above.
18. It was very forcefully submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that amalgamation and clubbing of two regions of Delhi into one region and also of Calcutta being blobbed into one region out of the two former regions, is discriminatory in view of the fact that so far the Mumbai is concerned, wherein also there are two regions, the same has not been so amalgamated and clubbed. it was submitted that consequently the officers serving in one region of Mumbai are posted to the other region on promotion to MMG Scale-III whereas the petitioners, who are officers serving in Delhi, were deprive of the said opportunity of being retained in Delhi and are now being transferred to far-flung areas. While refuting the said allegation, Mr. Rohtagi submitted that there are cogent reasons for the bank to resort to the aforesaid policy decision, which cannot be the subject matter of judicial review. The reasons given by the respondent bank for treating Mumbai differently from Delhi and Calcutta are spelt out from the pleadings and submissions of the counsel for the respondents. The said reasons are:-
(a) difficulty in getting accommodation on account of sky rocketing rental charges prevailing in Mumbai;
(b) the distance between many of the branches begin about 30-40 kms.;
(c) if region in Mumbai are to be treated as one unit, all the promotees from Mumbai will have to be transferred out of Mumbai despite the fact that most of them may be having housing arrangement in Mumbai and in such a situation all the vacancies in Mumbai have to be filled in by promotees from other zones, forcing them to face the housing problems in Mumbai;
(d) with a view to facilitate bringing back officers to Delhi, who have already worked out of Delhi and are eligible to be brought back as per the policy of the bank, which would not be possible if the regions under Delhi Zone are not treated as one centre; and
(e) greater number of large branches, very large branches and extra large branches are located in Mumbai.
19. So far difficulty in getting accommodation on account of sky rocketing rental charges and the long distance between many of the branches are concerned, the same could be true also in respect of Delhi also but it is also true that the housing problem in Mumbai is much more acute than in Delhi. The number of branches in Mumbai, where the main Office of the bank is also located, are large, very large and extra large. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, during the course of his submissions stated that the number of large branches, very large branches and extra large branches are far greater within the Mumbai Zone as compared to Delhi or Calcutta, in support of which he has submitted a table to the following effect:-
ZONE NO.OF NO. OF TOTAL LBs/
REGIONS BRANCHES VLBs/ELBs
Delhi 4 163 53
Calcutta 6 298 38
Mumbai 4 122 76
20. The said table indicates that even though the number of branches within Mumbai Zone are the lowest, it has the maximum number of Large Benches, very Large Branches and Extra Large Branches. The Central Office of the bank is also situated in Mumbai and, Therefore, there are the highest number of vacancies in the MMG Scale-III in Mumbai Zone as compared to other Zones. Since Mumbai has acute problem of housing, it may not be possible for the bank to provide accommodation to all the promotees in Mumbai on transfer. The decision of the bank to merge two regions within Delhi and Calcutta Centres, as is stated in the pleadings, is in the administrative exigencies. It is stated that w.e.f. 5.5.99 the bank decided to merge the two regions within Delhi and Calcutta Centres respectively for the purpose of posting on promotion only. By the aforesaid decision, Delhi-A and Delhi-B regions were merged into one region and accordingly since 5.5.99 Delhi Zone has three regions instead of four regions, which are Delhi, Kota and Jaipur. By the same circular Calcutta (North) Region and Calcutta (South) Region were merged into one region and accordingly Calcutta Zone ever since 5.5.99 has five regions instead of earlier six regions for the purpose of promotion and posting on promotion which are (1) Calcutta Centre; (2) Siliguri; (3) Bhubaneswar; (4) Jalpaiguri and (5) Durgapur The said decision was also taken by the bank in administrative exigencies. while taking the aforesaid decision the bank was also of the opinion that the two regions within the Mumbai Centre cannot be merged due to acute housing problem faced within Mumbai by the officers themselves. It was stated that the aforesaid decision is not without any application of mind or whimsical and is not malafide.
21. The decision to merge the two regions in Delhi and Calcutta was taken by the bank, on administrative exigencies. When a decision is taken by an executive in respect of its functioning, the same is an executive act and is entirely within the administrative sphere. The court is not in a position and also does not have the expertise to go into the merits of such a decision. The merger of two regions or bifurcation of one region into two regions is exclusively a matter for the administration to decide and is an executive act. Such decision is pure and simple administrative decision relating to a policy matter of the bank taken due to administrative requirements. The reliance placed by the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the bank in the decision in
REGION VACANCIES PROMOTEES Delhi 31 22 Kota 1 2 Jaipur 0 4
22. In the present case, two promotees were retained in Delhi region (Delhi Centre) since they had not completed three years within the zone upon their request transfer to Delhi as per policy of the bank. Out of the remaining, 20 promotees from Delhi region they were transferred from Delhi to the following zones, since there was practically no vacancies in other regions of Delhi Zone, as is indicated above:-
Agra 3
Lucknow 4
Ahmedabad 6
Chandigarh 1
Mumbai 6
23. As against the above, the total number of promotees in Calcutta Zone were 42 but the Calcutta zone had only 24 vacancies. Thus, only 24 of the promotees cold be retained int the Calcutta Zone. Therefore, the 24 promotees in the descending order of their age were retained in the Calcutta Zone as per the list of 10.8.2000 and the 25th promotee onwards were transferred to the nearest zone and the last promotee wold obviously go to the farthest zone. It was sought to be submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioners that the aforesaid position, as state in the pleadings, was not correct on the face of the list dt. 10.8.2000. However, it could not be disputed that the promotion orders were not made and issued to the petitioners on the basis of the said list of 10.8.2000. There were altogether 76 changes all over India even after the list dt. 10.8.2000 was sent to the Zonal office. Therefore, nothing rests on the said list issued on 10.8.2000 and no case could be made out on the basis thereof. The aforesaid discussion leads to one and the only conclusion that the impugned circular neither could be said to be arbitrary nor discriminatory. Besides the same being an administrative policy decision of the Bank in consideration of administrative exigencies and necessities does not attract the applicability of the equality clause. In view of the said conclusions the second and third issues stand answered. So far the fourth issue is concerned, no particular is furnished by any of the petitioners in their writ petitions to bring home the aforesaid issue. No material/particular is available on record to show that the implementation of the circular to any individual petitioner herein was improper. Unless sufficient and strong materials and documents are placed on record in support of the said contention it is not possible to decide the said grievance that the impugned circular was not properly implemented in respect of any of the petitioners. The fourth issue also stands answered accordingly. Therefore, I am left with now to decide the fifth and the last issue.
24. It is brought out on records that the bank carries out an all India promotion exercise for the aforesaid scale of employees. Similar exercise was also carried out in the year 1998-99 pursuant to the aforesaid circular. None of the officers of the bank challenged the aforesaid exercise while initiating the promotion exercise from MMG Scale-II to MMG Scale-III. Even for the present year i.e. 1999-2000, options were called for from all the eligible candidates who were interested in participating in the promotion exercise for the year 1999-2000 and they were required to apply for the same in the prescribed format. Each of the petitioner had willingly participated in the said exercise for the year 1999-2000 in terms of policy of the bank and their applications and letters for participating and appearing in the said process, duly filled in and signed, have been placed on record. Having accepted the said promotion process on the basis of the merger w.e.f. 5.5.99 and by virtue of participation in the promotion process for the present year also, the principles of estoppel would definitely apply to the petitioners, for the petitioners having participated in the promotional process and having been so promoted after their participation without any protest or demur, cannot challenge only their posting orders on the basis of alleged merger, which was also interlinked with the aforesaid promotion order. It also appears from the records that there are 14 petitioners in these writ petitions, out of total 292 promotees and none of the officer promoted in the Calcutta Region is before this court. I am informed by the learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the respondents, that the said officers from the merged Calcutta Region have already joined their duties at the place of their posting whereas some of the persons, who have been similarly promoted in the amalgamated Delhi Region, save and except the petitioner, have also joined their duties. It further transpires from the records that the apex body of the association of the petitioner is All India Central Band Officers Association. There is another association of the officers known as All India Central Band Officers Federation. A joint discussion was held with the aforesaid officers federation and association to which the petitioner union is an affiliated unit. Such discussions had also taken place even after issuance of the aforesaid circular in the month of May, 1999. However, from the Minutes of the Meetings placed on record it is established that although they had raised specific issues relating to Regulations 47 of the Central Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979, no grievance was raised in respect of the aforesaid circular or to the legality of the said circular in any manner as is sought to be raised now. It is thus clear and apparent that the union had no objection initially with the aforesaid guidelines/circular of the bank dt. 5.5.99 and accepted the same.
25. The contention, Therefore, that the circular dt. 5.5.99 is bad, arbitrary and discriminatory, cannot be accepted for the aforesaid reasons. The principles of estoppel is also applicable to the fact and circumstances of the present case for the reasons and grounds stated above. In that view of the matter, I find no merit in these writ petitions and the same are dismissed.
