AllBankingSolutions.com

......our answer to all your banking needs



 

Follow AllBankingSolutions

 @


    Follow allbanking on Twitter

 

Why There Is A Need  for Re-visiting Promotion Process ?


Ads by Google

by

Danendra Jain dkjain49709@gmail.com

 

Bank has misinterpreted court proceeding, out of court settlement and filing of compromise paper and once again initiated the disputed promotion process which has been frequently stayed and frequently stay vacated.   After all why bank is so much in hurry to conduct promotion process which has disputed conditions applicable for various scale officers differently and which are discriminatory.


A petition was filed in Chennai High Court by an aggrieved officer through his union leaders (not majority union) challenging various conditions imposed in promotion policy framed under dictates of Ministry of Finance.    When bank management found trapped in its own corrupt game, it called flatterer leaders of majority trade union of officers and also leader associated with above court case and persuaded and forced them applying their managerial tactics to arrive at an compromise settlement to dilute the effect and repercussion of aforesaid court case.

Accordingly a petition for out of court settlement was drafted and signed by petitioner and defendant and filed in Chennai court to abort the court proceedings which is as good as miscarriage of justice before its delivery.

I simply ask a question, If a murderer kills a person and when the aggrieved family files a case in court of law, the murderer forces or persuades or blackmail the family to sign a out of court settlement to puncture the proceeding s of court, to abort the court proceedings and finally to force miscarriage of justice before its delivery, will court act upon such out of court settlement and deliver judgment as per wishes of murderer and give relief to the murdererer?


If such out of court settlement is arrived between the culprit and the victim, between the exploiter bank management and the exploited employee and between the petitioner and the defendant particularly when the outcome of the court case may affect the future of hundreds of other officers in a similar way,---


May such out of court settlement filed in court and at police stations clears the path for exoneration of the culprit and the evil doers?

Are such settlement meant to abort the justice meant for officer community as a whole and not for any individual though case was filed by an individual?

Can a developed and educated society allow perpetuation of reign of injustice with other similarly aggrieved officers only because they have not filed case in court of law?

In the case filed by bank in Chennai court the petitioner also signed an out of court settlement with bank management where one post will be reserved for the petitioner and bank will conduct written test for all other officers desirous of promotion from scale III to scale IV . By such illegal agreement and then by taking the concurrence of flatterer majority trade union officials , bank management once again initiated the promotion process which was stayed by the court.

 

 

 

Ads by Google

It is learnt from reliable sources that Court has not yet decided in the matter. Still in the name of court order promotion process has once again been started by the bank without removing all discriminatory clauses and without giving adequate justice to other officers.Truth is yet to be validated .


Officers from scale I to II and from scale II to III have two options one with fast tract and another with normal track. Officers from scale III to scale IV will now have to pass through Computer skill test, written test, Group discussion and interview. Scale IV to V with group discussion and Interview. And finally officers interested promotion from scale V to VI and VI to VII have to pass through only through Interview only.


How it is acceptable that officers in scale I to scale III getting 60 marks will be given chance to appear in promotion process and scale IV and above will not be given same privilege?


How it is necessary to pass computer skill test for scale III officers before participating in promotion process and not necessary for other scale officers?


In all the promotions however unwarranted, questionable and avoidable importance is attached to marks on Annual Appraisal Reports and that in Interview. Marks in APR are given to an officer by different appraiser in different way with biased mind. If the appraiser is whimsical, selfish, corrupt and greedy, he or she can spoil the career of an honest performing officer by giving extremely poor marks even though the concerned officer is sincere and hard working. On the other hand such unsuitable appraise give highest marks to a non performing officer who earn bribe through unfair means and share with the higher officials.


In India where 90% of senior officials are corrupt and caste biased, an officer cannot dream of justice and cannot imagine of appropriate, suitable marks in APAR as per his or her performance, efficiency and potential to perform.


Is it justified to rely upon such marks which are not at all linked with real performance?


Similarly interview is conducted by various Interview Panels constituted by managing committee and these interview panels carry out interview of officers at different centers and give marking as per their whims and fancies. Different panels have different style of marking.


God knows what features of officers are tested in 2 minutes of interview which could not be tested in 5 to 35 years of service through APAR, written test and group discussions. I smell only bad intention in entire promotion process.


After all what is harm if all officers in order of seniority are promoted and given a chance to perform. After all Human Resource Department of each bank management have written history of all officers and they know ins and out of all officers and they know which officer is good and which is bad in real banking. Bank management at central level knows the marks of all officer in all scales on all fixed parameters like educational qualification, job responsibility and that on APAR Officers.


Hence they may prepare a merit list at central level of all officers aggregating all such undisputable marks and based on this they can promote an officer or reject an officers if his marks is less than a cut off marks or they may prepare a list of officer in order of marks equivalent to number of vacancies in particular scale. In this way the system will be transparent and well recorded and there will be lesser scope for manipulation.


At least senior officers who have devotedly worked in bank for two or three decades will not be rejected by interview panel to give chance to a young officer of their choice compromising merit and potential of the officer. It is worthwhile to mention here that marks given by interview panel in 2 minutes of interview cannot be challenged in any court of law and one cannot prove that he has been poor marks willfully and unjudiciously.


Officers who are getting poor marks in APAR, job responsibility and educational qualification will automatically appear in the bottom part of merit list thus prepared. In this way management of bank will get rid of untalented and non performing officers in the most judicious way.IN this way reign of injustice will end as soon as system of interview is discarded from promotion process. I find APAR also unsuitable but at least better than whimsical and unchallengeable marking given by Interview panel.


It is however not acceptable to corrupt executives of higher management. This is why they forced and or persuaded petitioner and took the concurrence of majority trade unions to arrive at an out of court settlement. They agreed to compromise with merit and allowed officers to participate in promotion process even though he got 60 marks only in APAR. In this way bank management in the name of merit strangulated the life of meritorious officers. They know very well that their team of officers constituting interview panel has invested with ample power to reject any officer in interview by giving him 5 out of 25 in Interview and select any officer by giving whimsically 25 out of 25 marks in interview to choose officers of their choice. In this way they have big scope to nullify the impact of higher marks obtained by a senior officer in Job responsibility or APAR parameter.


If a Special Investigating Team is set up to investigate the fraudulent game being played by bank management in promotion process and if they look into APAR marking of last ten years of top 100 executives and compare the same with the marks given to such officers by interview panel, the bitter truth of fraud will precipitate and then only real exposure of promotion process will emerge.


If SIT thus constituted honestly looks into past record of at least 100 top executives, I am very much confident truth will come out.


Following startling truth may come out in the open


Officers who were indulged in bribe led lending got higher marks by appraiser than who devotedly performed in the interest of bank.
Officers who were served charge sheet for various irregularities got higher marks in APAR and officers who fought for safe lending given poor marks in APAR.
Officers who were indulged in WWW got higher marks than officers who believed in work and work only.
Officer whose bribe lending led to rise in Non Performing Assets (NPA) were given better marks in interview.
Officers who were given poor marks in APAR got higher marks in Interview and officers who were given best marking by their appraiser on account of their best performance were give very poor marks in interview.
Officers APAR marks emanating from field level were ignored and fabricated marks were allotted to an officer to promote or reject him.
And so on,


Many startling facts will come out and then only government will realize the real reason behind abnormal rise in bad assets in all public sector bank as also the real reason behind growing frustration among officers, growing indifference and unwillingness among senior officers towards promotion process and reason for young and inexperienced officers given the responsibility of running a branch jeopardizing the interest of the bank.


SIT will also tell the truth of court cases. It will come out how court cases in last two three decades were closed and justice was aborted by forcing petitioners to enter into out of court settlement.


Last but not the least, bank management in the name of merit is giving promotion to young and inexperienced officers and thus giving higher responsibility to incompetent persons and jeopardizing the quality of bank assets, profitability of the bank, the quality of customer service and the interest of investors.


It is true that by giving quick promotions to young officer bank management divide the unity of officers and puncture the trade union movement against reign of injustice and ensure there is no IR problems. But in the long run it is not only Human resource of the bank who suffer in wage revision caused by poor performance of the bank but it also tarnishes the image of the bank in investors and shakes the confidence of genuine customers of the bank whose future depends on financial support of bank.


When Human Resource in any organization is not devoted and motivated, bad customers will get the opportunity to pay bribe and get sanction of credit facility for their business and thus contribute in increasing the volume of bad assets. It is undoubtedly true but unfortunate that during last two decades HRD of all banks have faced severe erosion in quality and they HRD have completely failed to give justice to their work force and to the bank they serve.

 

 

You can give your feedback / comments about this Article.   Please give only relevant comments as irrelevant comments are waste of time for yourself and our other readers.

 

 

blog comments powered by Disqus