LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Chairman & Managing Director, Central Bank of India & Ors. v. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare Association & Ors.

Civil Appeal · Neutral citation not assigned (Civil Appeal No. 209 of 2015)Decided 9 Jan 2015
Civil Appeal No. 209 of 2015
Justice J. Chelameswar · Justice A.K. Sikri

Background

Public sector banks (Central Bank of India and UCO Bank) were following a reservation policy for SC/ST employees at recruitment and for promotion from clerical grade into the officer cadre, but did not apply any reservation when promoting officers from one officer scale to the next (e.g., Scale-I to Scale-II). SC/ST employees' associations challenged this before the Madras High Court, arguing that a 1997 Central Government office memorandum required reservation at these higher promotion stages too; the High Court's Division Bench agreed and ruled in their favour, prompting the banks to appeal.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the 1997 office memorandum did not create any new reservation for promotions within Group-A/Class-I posts: it only continued pre-existing arrangements, and a 1990 memorandum had made clear that promotions within Class-I posts carrying a salary above a certain ceiling attracted only a "concession" (preference if senior enough and not unfit), not reservation. However, the Court noted that this "no reservation" rule, by its own terms, applied only from the salary ceiling corresponding to Scale-VII and above. Consequently, it partly allowed the appeals: it set aside the High Court's finding that the 1997 memorandum itself mandated reservation, but held that reservation must still be applied for all promotions from Scale-I up to Scale-VI, directing the banks to implement promotions accordingly.

Lesson Learnt

Reservation in government or public-sector employment exists only where a specific rule or circular actually provides for it, courts will not read reservation into a general circular that merely continues an existing scheme, but employees can still succeed if a careful reading of the applicable salary/scale thresholds shows reservation was already due at their particular level.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case