The Delhi High Court noted that the man’s main concern was that the promotion exercise conducted by the bank for 2018-19 was vitiated by unfairness and prejudice against him. (AI-generated image)The Delhi High Court has dismissed a 63-year-old SBI employee’s plea challenging the denial of promotion, saying that an employee who participated in a promotion process cannot challenge it merely because he was unsuccessful.Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia were hearing an appeal filed by one, Sharwan Kumar Vigmal, who was appointed as clerk-cum typist by SBI in 1983, challenging the single judge’s order of April, which dismissed his plea challenging the promotion list issued by the bank in May, 2018.The court held that Vigmal failed to prove that the bank acted with mala fide (bad) intention or penalised him for approaching the court and mentioned that “a plea of mala fides is easy to make, but difficult to establish”. “In this regard, the learned single judge has rightly observed in the impugned order that a plea of mala fides is easy to make, but difficult to establish… The courts cannot interfere with promotion exercises merely based on conjectures or surmises of a candidate who, having participated in the selection process, alleges mala fides only after being unsuccessful therein,” the September 2 order read. 35 years of service, promotion pleaVigmal claimed that he joined the services of the State Bank of India (SBI) in 1983 as a clerk-cum-typist in New Delhi, and provided service for over 35 years. In 2017, he was allegedly not promoted from middle management grade scale II to the next level and, aggrieved, filed a case before the Delhi High Court. The court, by its January 31, 2018 judgment, directed SBI to consider his case in the promotional exercise to be held in 2018-19 for back-dated promotion, subject to his fulfilling the eligibility criteria under the applicable promotion policy. The policy required a written test followed by an interview. However, Vigmal sought a waiver of the written test, but the court rejected his request. Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia found that the man failed to establish any infirmity in the promotion exercise conducted by SBI in 2018-19.Subsequently, Vigmal participated in the promotion exercise conducted for 2018-19. On May 15, 2018, the bank issued the final list of candidates promoted to the next level. However, his name did not appear in the final list. Aggrieved, he filed another petition challenging the promotion list, which was dismissed by the single judge.Story continues below this adRepresenting himself, Vigmal argued that the bank acted in a mala fide manner in denying him promotion, which he claimed he deserved on account of his more than 35 years of unblemished service with SBI.Also Read | Madhya Pradesh High Court restores ‘retired’ Central Bank branch manager’s pensionHe further submitted that, although no written test was conducted for the promotion exercise of 2017-18, he was made to appear in the written test despite being considered for back-dated promotion.‘Can’t challenge exam procedure’The court pointed out that the written test was undertaken by Vigmal in compliance with the previous judgment of this court and, having participated in the written test and interview, he could not be permitted to challenge the process merely because he was unsuccessful in securing promotion.The court also pointed out that his argument that his marks for 2018-19 were not disclosed could not be accepted as a ground to challenge the bank’s promotion process on allegations of mala fides or material irregularity.Story continues below this adThe Delhi High Court noted that the Vigmal’s main concern was that the promotion exercise conducted by the bank for 2018-19 was vitiated by unfairness and prejudice against him. On this premise, he alleged mala fides on the part of the bank.The court found that he failed to establish any infirmity in the promotion exercise conducted by SBI in 2018-19, in which his candidature for back-dated promotion for 2016-17 and 2017-18 was considered in compliance with the directions issued by the January 31, 2018 judgment.Accordingly, the court upheld the single judge’s order and dismissed the appeal.Richa Sahay is a Legal Correspondent for The Indian Express (Digital), where she focuses on simplifying the complexities of the Indian judicial system. A law postgraduate, she leverages her advanced legal education to bridge the gap between technical court rulings and public understanding, ensuring that readers stay informed about the rapidly evolving legal landscape. Expertise Advanced Legal Education: As a law postgraduate, Richa possesses the academic depth required to interpret intricate statutes and constitutional nuances. Her background allows her to provide more than just summaries; she offers context-driven analysis of how legal changes impact the average citizen. Specialized Beat: She operates at the intersection of law and public policy, focusing on: Judicial Updates: Providing timely reports on orders from the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts. Legal Simplification: Translating dense "legalese" into accessible, engaging narratives without sacrificing factual accuracy. Legislative Changes: Monitoring new bills, amendments, and regulatory shifts that shape Indian society. ... Read More