The Delhi High Court has rejected an appeal from a 63-year-old employee of the State Bank of India (SBI), who contested the rejection of his promotion. The court reasoned that an employee cannot question the promotion process simply because they were not selected.

Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia were reviewing the case brought by Sharwan Kumar Vigmal, who began his career with SBI as a clerk-cum-typist in 1983. Vigmal was appealing a decision made by a single judge in April, which had dismissed his challenge to the promotion list published by SBI in May 2018.

The court concluded that Vigmal did not demonstrate that SBI acted with ill intent or retaliated against him for pursuing legal action. The judges emphasized that while claims of mala fides (bad faith) are easy to assert, they are challenging to prove.

The judges noted in their September 2 ruling that it is inappropriate for courts to interfere in promotion processes based solely on speculation from candidates who, having participated, raise allegations of bad faith only after being unsuccessful.

Vigmal stated that he had served SBI for over 35 years, but was not promoted from middle management grade scale II in 2017. Feeling wronged, he approached the Delhi High Court. In a ruling on January 31, 2018, the court instructed SBI to consider his case for back-dated promotion in the upcoming 2018-19 promotional round, contingent upon meeting the eligibility requirements. This included a written examination and an interview. However, his request for exemption from the written test was denied by the court.

Vigmal participated in the 2018-19 promotion process, but when the final list was released on May 15, 2018, his name was absent. Following this, he filed another petition against the promotion list, which was subsequently dismissed by a single judge.

Representing himself, Vigmal contended that the bank acted in bad faith by denying him a promotion that he believed was rightfully his due to his lengthy and unblemished service record.

He also argued that even though no written test was required for the promotion process in 2017-18, he was still compelled to take the written exam while being considered for back-dated promotion.

The court clarified that Vigmal’s participation in the written test was in line with the prior court ruling. It stated that he could not challenge the promotion process simply because he did not achieve the desired outcome.

Furthermore, the court rejected his claim that the non-disclosure of his marks for the 2018-19 process constituted grounds for contesting the promotion procedure, asserting that his allegations of mala fides or procedural irregularities were unfounded.

The judges noted that Vigmal’s primary concern was that the promotion process for 2018-19 was marred by unfairness and bias against him, leading to his allegations of bad faith directed at the bank.

Ultimately, the court determined that Vigmal failed to prove any shortcomings in the 2018-19 promotion exercise, during which his candidacy for back-dated promotion was duly considered as per the January 31, 2018, ruling.

As a result, the court upheld the previous ruling of the single judge and dismissed Vigmal’s appeal.

Richa Sahay serves as a Legal Correspondent for The Indian Express (Digital), specializing in demystifying the complexities of the Indian judicial system. With a postgraduate degree in law, she utilizes her advanced legal knowledge to connect intricate court decisions with public understanding, keeping readers informed about the dynamic legal landscape.

Her areas of expertise include:

• Advanced Legal Education: Richa possesses the necessary academic background to interpret complex statutes and constitutional issues, providing context-rich analysis on legal changes and their implications for everyday citizens.
• Specialized Beat: She focuses on the intersection of law and public policy, covering:
• Judicial Updates: Offering timely reports on decisions from the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts.
• Legal Simplification: Making dense legal language accessible and engaging without compromising accuracy.
• Legislative Changes: Keeping track of new bills, amendments, and regulatory developments that influence Indian society.