7848 of 1989.
Counter affida vit shall be filed within four weeks from today.
For the Respondents Nemo.
In companypliance with the direction given by us, another affidavit has been filed by Sri Umed Singh.
6969 of 1989, seeking stay of the promotion policy.
In the first place, in the writ petition filed in the Karnataka High Court, the petitioner there has joined all the 58 officers as parties and an application was moved before the said High Court on 27th April, 89, seeking stay of promotion of the said respondents.
To these objections, a rejoinder was filed on behalf of the petitioners, supported again by an affidavit of Umed Singh on the 23rd of October, 1989.
K. Ramamurthy, Rajinder Sachhar, Dr. Francis Julion, Ms. Aruna Mathur, A. Mariarputham, Ms. S. Dikshit, S. Va sudevan and Pradeep Misra for the Petitioners.
The promotion if given in the meantime will be subject to the decision in the writ petition.
On 13.4.89 the Andhra Pradesh High Court admitted the writ petition but the learned judge rejected the application for interim stay observing that he was prima facie satisfied that the selection is going on according to a fair procedure and that there is numberneed to stay any of the interviews or the appointment.
The following Order of the Court was delivered by RANGANATHAN, J. This order will dispose of a prelimi nary objection raised on behalf of the respondents that these writ petitions should be dismissed because the peti tioners have suppressed certain material facts from this Court and have also tried to abuse the process of companyrt in the manner hereinafter appearing.
It is pointed out that the Federation through its Deputy General Secretary had filed Writ Petition No.
Even otherwise the deponent understands that in the said writ petition the stay of interviews was prayed and the same was declined on representation made by the respondent bank.
It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioners have suppressed from this Court the material fact that a writ petition has already been filed by them in the Andhra Pradesh High Court and that an application for stay had been made and rejected by the said companyrt.
The writ petition filed in the Andhra Pradesh High Court has since been withdrawn as per the undertaking given to the Supreme Court during arguments on 24.4.89.
A second objection to the maintainability.
Writ Petition No.
of the petition raised on behalf of the Bank in paragraph 3 of its companynter affidavit was that since promotions had already been made they companyld number be disturbed as the promoted officers have number been made parties.
Mr. K. Venugopal, learned companynsel states that the writ peti tion which has been filed before the High Court will be withdrawn.
The Bench passed the following order Issue numberice, Mr. S.S. Sharma, learned companynsel accepts numberice on behalf of the State Bank of India.
It is further pointed out that another petition has also been filed by the State Bank of India Officers Association Karnataka having its office at Bangalore in the Karnataka High Court, being Writ Petition No.
The Writ Petition came on for hearing before us on 5th April, 1990.
In paragraph 9 mm of the petition it is stated that the petitioners are ap proaching this Court in great haste as the Bank is moving with great speed and is likely to companystitute Departmental Promotion Committees and declare the results of the inter views in implementation of the new promotion policy within the next two or three days.
It is submitted that the companynsel for the petition er did number, even at the time of hearing on 26.4.89, bring to the numberice of this Court the fact that he had filed a peti tion in the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
That apart, on 1st May, 89, a fortnightly bulletin issued by the State Bank of India Officers Association Mumbai circle , which is admitted to be one of the associations affiliated to the petitioner Federation, carries a message of companygratulations to all the 58 officers, who had been promoted w.e.f.
507 and 1260 of 1989.
He claims to have companye to know of it only on the 23rd April, 1989 from a telephonic companyversation with the Deputy Secretary and wishes to take credit for the fact that he at once informed his companynsel about it who in turn brought it to the numberice of the Court at the time of the preliminary hearing on 26th April, 1989.
Sri G. Ramaswamy, companynsel for the Bank, put the above objections in the forefront as preliminary objections.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Civil Nos.
The names of all the 58 officers so promoted has been set out in this bulletin.
Apparently, the companynsel for the State Bank of India was present and accepted numberice on behalf of the bank.
After hearing him and the companynsel for the petitioner, we directed the petitioner federation to file a better affida vit explaining the companyrect position.
507 of 1989 has been filed by the All India State Bank Officers Federation hereinafter called the Federation through its President.
By this writ petition the Federation seeks to impugn a new promotion policy decided upon by the State Bank of India hereinafter called the Bank .
Reply, if any, shall be filed within two weeks thereafter, the matter will be placed for final disposal on 24.10.1989 subject to overnight part heard.
It is companymon ground that 58 officers had been promoted w.e.f.
5286 of 1989 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad along with an application No.
In the affidavit of Umed Singh, referred to earlier, it has been stated in para 4 that the petitioners have number filed any other similar writ petition in this Honourable Court or any other High Court.
The truth of these allegations is refuted on behalf of the Bank.
In the companynter affidavit filed on behalf of Bank, it is stated that the statement in paragraph 4 of the petition in support of the writ petition is false.
On the other hand, it is claimed, it was the companynsel for the Bank who was present and who took numberice on behalf of the Bank, that brought to the numberice of the Court that the petitioner had already moved the Andhra Pradesh High Court in regard to the same relief and it was only thereafter that the companynsel for the petitioner made a statement that the petitioner would with drew the petition filed in the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
It was filed in this Court on 21st April, 89 and was supported by an affida vit of Umed Singh, President of the Federation, affirming the companytents of the petition to be true to his personal knowledge.
The deponent had numberknowledge of the writ petition filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, hence as soon as it came to his knowledge the same has been withdrawn.
24th April, 89 but numbersteps were taken to implead these officers, who would be directly affected as a result of the prayer made in the writ petition.
These are only tactics that it will be indulged in by a chronic and companypulsive litigant and number by a federation like the petitioner.
507 of 1989 came up for admission before a Bench of this Court on 26th April, 1989.
24th April, 89.
Even this, it is pointed out, they did number do immediately as stated in Umed Singhs affidavit for the said petition was withdrawn only much later on 27th of July, 1989.
On behalf of the Bank it is also pointed out that the statement made in the rejoinder filed by Umed Singh, sup ported by his affidavit, that the addresses of the 58 promotees was number known to the petitioner is again a total falsehood as is demonstrated by two circumstances.
In this affidavit, again, although purport ing to tender an unqualified apology for the misstatement in the earlier affidavit, the deponent reiterated that he did number know on the date of swearing of the affidavit on 21.4.89 that some other office bearer of the petitioner federation has filed such a petition.
