"Creating False Equivalence & Illusion": High Court Orders Fresh Promotion Test For J&K Banking Associates, Declares Current Process Unfair

The court has further directed the J&K Bank to conduct a fresh eligibility screening test for the petitioners, who are non-IBPS Banking Associates.

Differentiating Banking Associates with seven (7) plus years of service from fast-track channel Banking Associates a bench of Justice Rahul Bharti cited the Policy for Promotion of Workmen (Banking Associates, Assistant Banking Associates and Banking Attendants) and observed,

“...what is written test (online) for FastTrack/Merit channel Banking Associates with three (3) plus years of service is not to be an eligibility screening written test (objective type) for non-IBPS Banking Associates with seven (7) plus years of service under Seniority-cum-Selectivity Channel. The respondent No. 1- the Bank is creating a false equivalence and illusion by its stand in the case thereby denouncing the petitioners”.

Background of the Case:

The petitioners, a group of Banking Associates from J&K Bank, challenged the bank's promotion policy, which required them to undergo the same written test conducted by IBPS Mumbai that was designed for the fast-track channel Banking Associates. The petitioners argued that this policy was unjust and violated the equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioners highlighted that their call letters for the eligibility screening test suggested a different procedure than what was ultimately administered. They claimed that they were taken by surprise when subjected to the same written test as their counterparts in the fast-track channel.

The petitioners contended that this practice negated the distinction between the two classes of employees and thus violated their rights to fair treatment under the bank's policy and the Constitution.

The petitioners' primary contention was that the bank's promotion policy, by subjecting them to the same written test as the fast-track candidates, failed to recognize the qualitative difference between the two groups. They argued that this practice amounted to treating unequals as equals, thereby offending the principles of equality.

On the other hand, the respondents, representing J&K Bank, argued that the policy was based on an intelligible differentia and that the petitioners were estopped from challenging the procedure after having participated in the selection process. They maintained that the written test was conducted in conformity with the promotion policy and that the petitioners could not seek a screening test of their choice .

Observations Made by the Court

Justice Bharti after examining the case, noting the petitioners' claims and the respondents' rebuttals observed that the petitioners were justified in expecting a distinct eligibility screening test and that subjecting them to the same written test as the fast-track candidates indeed amounted to unequal treatment.

Citing an example to demonstrate the arbitrariness on the part of the respondent Bank by imposing the test on the petitioner Banking Associates Justice Bharti explained,

“A walker cannot be tested on a fitness test meant for a runner and, therefore, disqualification cannot be ascribed to him so as to unfit him to join a group of walkers with whom he is supposed to compete in a competition for promotion to next level”.

The court emphasized the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between different classes of employees as per the bank's promotion policy.

It noted that the policy explicitly provided for two different channels of promotion—one based on seniority and the other on merit, as determined by the IBPS test and merging these channels through a uniform test was contrary to the principles of fairness and equality.

“The respondent No.1-the Bank has not come forward with any decision from its end being placed on the file of this writ petition to show by which decision at its end the common written test for Fast Track/Merit channel Banking Associates and non IBPS Banking Associates came to be ordered and carried out”, the bench remarked.

Pointing out that the petitioners, who fell under the seniority-based pool, were unfairly subjected to the same merit-based test as their three-year counterparts. This practice, the court ruled, was a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, as it failed to recognize and respect the distinct qualifications and experiences of the two groups.

Drawing reference from Roman philosopher Lucretius's quote “One man's food is another man's poison,” Justice Bharti opined,

“… a sub-class in the context of their service, subjected uninformed to a promotion related test meant for another sub-class of employees contrary to the promotion policy itself admitting of differential promotion test to the said two sub-classes thereby rendering them discriminated and purportedly denied of promotion prospect under seniority cum selectivity channel”.

In alignment with these observations, the court directed J&K Bank to rectify its promotion policy, ensuring adherence to fairness and equality principles. It further directed for a fresh eligibility screening test (objective type) as envisaged by clause 4.1(a) of the promotion policy, specifically tailored for non-IBPS Banking Associates.

Case Title: Javeed Ahmad Sheikh and others Vs J&K Bank

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 214

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment