Supreme Court has held that there is no SC/ST quota for promotion in Public Sector banks, reviewing its earlier judgment which had directed the banks to directions to make provision for reservations while carrying out promotions from Scale-I to Scale VI. Apex Court bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and A.K. Sikri setting aside the Judgment of Madras High Court, said that it is open for the State and the Banks to consider whether demand to provide reservation for promotion for SC/ST is justified and feasible.
High Court of Madras had held that in the matter of promotions in the officer grades, there shall be reservation provided for the officers belonging to the Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) categories working in these banks. On Appeal, the Supreme Court though held that there was no policy of reservation for the post carrying pay-scale of more than 5,700 per month, it was also held that reservation was there in respect of the post carrying basic pay of up to 5,700 per month and with the implementation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission Report, it would follow that such reservation was applicable to the post carrying pay-scale of 18,300.
On that basis, it was held that ₹ since pay-scale of the posts up to Scale VI was 18,300, insofar ₹ as promotions from Scale I up to VI are concerned, and reservation is to be provided. The Union of India and banks preferred review. The Court allowed the Review petition deleting paragraph Nos. 33 to 36 of the judgment and the directions contained therein, as well as the directions contained in paragraph No. 37 and replaced it with the following “Result of the aforesaid discussion would be to allow these appeals and set aside the judgment of the High Court. While doing so, we reiterate that it is for the State to take stock of the ground realities and take a decision as to whether it is necessary to make a provision for reservation in promotions from Scale I to Scale II and upward, and if so, up to which post. The contempt petition also stands disposed of.”
The Court agreed with the contention of the Attorney General that conclusion in Para 34 of the original judgment is directly in conflict with not only the earlier portion of paragraph 34, but the entire conclusion on the issue on which there is a detailed discussion from paragraph Nos. 26 to 32 and even in earlier paragraphs of the judgment. When an error is pointed out and the Court also finds that there is an error apparent on the face of the record, it would not shy away from correcting that error, the court said.
Important Links
Legal News View
-
SC stays Criminal Proceedings against M.S. Dhoni in Lord Vishnu Ad case
January 31, 2016
-
January 31, 2016
-
January 31, 2016
-
Centre not required to invite Public Tenders for strategic Defence equipment: SC
January 31, 2016
-
Supreme court directs CBI to conduct de novo investigation in Raju Pal murder case
January 31, 2016
-
Exclusive; DoPT provides list of Lokpal Aspirants, 4 SC Judges nominated for the post
January 24, 2016
-
January 24, 2016
-
January 24, 2016
-
Supreme Court dismisses a Twenty year old suit against widow by her daughter
January 24, 2016
-
Justice Sen to continue chairing panel probing Sexual Harassment charges against Justice S K Gangele
January 24, 2016
-
No SC/ST Quota for reservation for promotion in Public Sector Banks: Supreme Court
January 18, 2016
-
January 18, 2016
-
Supreme Court asks courts not to allow “Court Haunting” by “Unscrupulous Litigants”
January 18, 2016
-
German Supreme Court rules Facebook‘s ‘Friend Finder’ illegal !
January 18, 2016
-
January 18, 2016
-
SC seeks Government’s views on granting minority status to Sikhs in Punjab
January 18, 2016
-
Supreme Court asks courts not to allow “Court Haunting” by “Unscrupulous Litigants”
January 09, 2016
-
Unique PIL in SC – ‘Apex court Judges be allowed to hold office as long as they can’
January 09, 2016
-
January 09, 2016
-
Order. Order! Order? – Visiting Judicial Controversies of 2015
January 02, 2016
-
Lifer without Remission, Another Regressive Verdict
January 02, 2016
-
Bombay High Court should have ordered retrial of Salman Khan
January 02, 2016
-
January 02, 2016
-
January 02, 2016
-
Exclusive: Startling revelations after Bombay High Court stays the release of Encounter Cops
January 02, 2016
-
December 27, 2015
-
December 27, 2015
-
RBI’s Duty to Comply with RTI; Ten orders of Shailesh Gandhi upheld by SC
December 27, 2015
-
December 27, 2015
-
Exclusive: Arvind Datar-Pinky Anand Committee’s Second Report on Collegium Reform
December 27, 2015
-
December 27, 2015
-
December 20, 2015
-
December 20, 2015
-
December 20, 2015
-
Complete departmental inquiries within 6 months: Supreme Court tells State and Private Employers
December 20, 2015
-
December 20, 2015
-
RBI’s Duty to Comply with RTI; Ten orders of Shailesh Gandhi upheld by SC
December 20, 2015
-
Post retirement jobs for Judges: Judicial and Political divide calls for Appropriate Amendments
December 13, 2015
-
Consider including the names of Acid Attack Victims under the Disability List: Supreme Court
December 13, 2015
-
December 13, 2015
-
December 13, 2015
-
December 13, 2015
-
December 05, 2015
-
Upload all FIRs on Police website; provide copy of FIR to accused within 24 hours: Allahabad HC
December 05, 2015
-
Rajiv killers cannot be freed without Centre’s “concurrence” as CBI was probe agency:…
December 05, 2015
-
December 05, 2015
-
Supreme Court Structural and Jurisprudential Problems
December 05, 2015
-
November 30, 2015
-
November 30, 2015
-
November 30, 2015
-
Slideshow
Video Gallery
Contact Us
Jharkhand High Court.
Doranda,Ranchi
Call Us :
President:94317-06668
Secretary General:9431106240
Mail Us :
president@barassociationjhcranchi.com
gs@barassociationjhcranchi.com
enquiry@barassociationjhcranchi.com