Fresh Guideline to Banks on Promotion And Transfer by Ministry of Finance

F.No.5/5/2012-IR
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Financial Services
Jeevan Deep, IIIrd Floor,
Parliament Street, New Delhi


Dated the July 9, 2012


To


CEOs of all Public Sector Banks


Subject : Timelines for Promotions/Transfers in PSBs


Sir,


I am directed to refer to this Departments’ letter No. 9/1/2012-IR dated 
27.3.2012 and subsequent letter of even number dated 3.5.2012 on the above cited 

subject and to say that the status/progress of promotion and transfer process has 

been examined in this Department. 

2. It has been decided that those Banks that are yet to complete the process,
should ensure completion of the promotion/transfer process for the FY 2012-13 by 

31st July, 2012, except in specific cases where court cases are pending and stay 

orders have been granted.

3. This issues with the approval Secretary (FS).

Yours faithfully,

(Manish Kumar )

Under Secretary to the Government of India Crusade








Promotion policy in PSBs. - New guidelines issued by GOI 

F.No.4/11/1/2011-IR
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Financial Services
Jeevan Deep, IIIrd Floor,
Parliament Street, New Delhi
Dated the May 3, 2012

To
CEOs of all Public Sector Banks.

Subject: Promotion policy in PSBs.

Sir,

I am directed to refer to this Department’s letter of even number dated 14.3.2012 issued in suppression of earlier guidelines dated 5.12.2011 on the above subject and to say that several references received PSBs seeking 
relaxations/clarifications in the guidelines have been examined in this Department.

2. In view of the difficulties being experienced by PSBs regarding non- availability of the requisite number of officers in zone for consideration ,due to different profile of officers in Banks, APAR marks, cut-off date, etc, it has 
been decided that the following relaxations could be allowed by the Bank, as one time measure, for the promotion process for the year 2012-13:-

(i) The Zone of considerations for promotion should be generally 3 times the number of anticipated vacancies. 


However, incase these many officers are not available; the zone of consideration shall be atleast two times the number of likely vacancies. For this purpose, the Board of Directors of the Bank may further relax minimum 
eligibility in length of service by upto six months over and above one year already provided in the guidelines dated14.3.2012. The relaxation beyond one year in eligibility shall be granted only to the extent that officers at two 
times the number of vacancies become eligible.

(ii) Vacant positions must be filled subject to the suitability of officers within the zone of consideration as per the Guidelines.

(iii) All officers who are eligible on the cut-off date of experience requirement would be included in the zone of consideration.

(iv) The officers against whom disciplinary proceedings are in process would be considered in addition to the requirement of zone of consideration as mentioned at (i) above and the recommendations in respect of such 
officers shall be kept in sealed cover.

(v) The requirement of minimum 75% marks in APAR in each of the year under consideration would be relaxed to the extent of 60% marks APAR in each year for only those scales where passing of an examination by IBPS is mandatory for promotion.

(vi) The condition of not granting the benefit of relaxation in minimum experience at two successive levels of promotions in Scale-III and above, as prescribed at para 5(iv) of the guidelines dated 14.3.2012 stands withdrawn.

2. The provisions regarding reservations/concessions, etc, in respect of promotion of SC/ST employees and any other category of employees be followed as per the extant Guidelines in the matter.

3. All Banks are requested to obtain the approval of the Board of Directors for the above at the next meeting and to take action accordingly.

4. This issues with the approval of Secretary, DFS.

Yours faithfully,

(Manish Kumar)
Under Secretary to the Government of India

Copy to:-
1. All Govt. Nominee Directors.

2. NIC Cell for placing on the website

F.No.5/5/2012-IR
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Financial Services
Jeevan Deep, IIIrd Floor,
Parliament Street, New Delhi
Dated the May 3, 2012

To
CEOs of all Public Sector Banks.

Subject: Timelines for Promotions/Transfers in PSBs.

Sir,

I am directed to refer to this Department’s letter No.9/1/2012 dated 27.3.2012 and letter of even number dated 13.4.2012 on the above subject wherein it is advised that all the PSBs must complete the promotion process for the vacancies upto March, 2013 before 30.06.2012. Taking into consideration the academic session and other relevant factors, it has been decided that the process of regular transfer of officers is also completed at the beginning of the year so that the staff is not put to undue inconvenience.

2. In view of the above, the Public Sector Banks are advised for compliance as follows with reference to the Promotions and Transfers:

1) The process for promotion for the vacancies during the year must be completed before June of that year.

2) All transfer orders should be issued by June every year. However, transfer on promotion can be done after June as and when these become due.

3) Any transfer of officers after June, even on administrative exigencies, except on promotion, would require prior approval of the Board of Directors.

4) For promotion during the year APAR upto the previous year must be taken into account. The banks must put in place a system in which APARs are completed in time and are available for the process of promotion.

5) In case exams are to be conducted for promotion at any level, the same should also be held in time so that the promotion process got completed in time.

2. All Banks are requested to obtain the approval of the Board of Directors for the above at the next meeting and to take action accordingly.

3. This issues with the approval of Secretary (FS), DFS.

Yours faithfully,

(Manish Kumar)

Under Secretary to the Government of India

Copy to:-
1. All Govt. Nominee Directors.

2. NIC Cell for placing on the website

My views are given below . If you wish to express yourself to make the issue more vibrant and effective please share with all

Officers, especially top bankers who advocate merit and talk of fast track promotion to give chance to juniors are now building pressure on Ministry of Finance to reduce eligibility marks from 75% to 60%. It is bitter truth that merit of an officer cannot be judged by marks given to him by his assessor. Same officer gets 60 marks in Annual appraisal report from one boss and 95 from another boss; same officer gets 70 marks in one region and 98 marks IN OTHER REGION. Awarding of marks mostly depends on perception and conception of the assessing officer.

If the assessing officer is prejudiced,  or believer in WWW (wine, wealth and woman) he or she can spoil the future of any officer by giving very poor marks and there is no way to protest such unethical and evil acts. In some states there is a tradition of awarding above 90 marks to all officers in annual appraisal report (AAR) whereas in some other state there is a practice of awarding in the range of 70 to 80. People will believe me or not God knows, but it is also a undeniable truth that at the time of promotion process Regional Head used to submit purely a false, concocted, fabricated, and fraudulent chart of marks to Central authorities as also to members of interview panels appointed for promotion process for officers who used to be candidate for promotion and this chart of marks were entirely different from the actual AAR. Such false game may be proved only by a through CBI investigation into the record of past two or three decades.

There is therefore no merit in denying opportunity to any officer based on marks. I can rather mention here that no officer should have got marks below 70 or 75, and if someone has been given marks from 60 to 70 , it means assessor does not have mind to properly assess the juniors or  the junior is not at all fit for bank job and he must have been recruited through illegal means, say by payment of bribe to recruiters. In such cases performance assessing authority, reviewing authority and the officer who is being assessed and given marks below 70 must be removed from bank or given VRS.Normally a student obtaining 60 marks in education life used to be treated as intelligent. But in banks there is a practice of awarding 90 and above to almost all officers and hence the role of interview in final selection becomes more dominant and effective.

On the contrary I am of the opinion that there should not be any interview system. After all, in interview, members of the panel pick officers as per his whims and fancies, there is no value of experience, no value of marks in appraisal and nothing is important as is important the recommendation of regional head or some key officers. In such position it is foolish to spend crores of rupees on conducting interview and paying Travelling bill to candidate appearing in promotion processes.

Let the top officers decide at their own level and select officers for promotion on the basis of seniority and if they feel that any officer is incompetent or is not interested to accept promotion on the ground of sickness, they should make a record of it. If officer continue to be non performer for say five years he may be forced to or offered retirement. Why after all bank will bear the burden of non performers.

It is arbitrary decision in promotion processes that officers have lost in the promotion processes and therefore many good officers have decided not to attend / participate in such processes. It is only bank which is suffering loss due to non participation of meritorious and talented guys. Most of good officers preferred voluntary retirement only because of Worst HRD policies and corrupt execution of these policies. There is no system of immediate justice to those who are willfully and with malicious intention rejected by interview panel. No appeal and no relief by courts even in two decades.

It is worthwhile to mention here that if a person joined as officer in seventies or eighties, he got first opportunity for promotion after 10 to 12 years and further for second promotion after 8 to 10 years . It means a good officer could become scale III in a span of 20 to 25 years. Now management directly appoints officer in scale III and makes him in scale IV in 3 to 5 years neglecting the old batch who devoted served the bank for two to three decades. Similar situation occurs when officers are directly recruited in scale II or III or IV and V and so on.

In seventies and eighties officers joining in banks used to be treated as equal or super to IAS and IPS officers and now after three decades officers joining in banks is treated as worse than a clerk or a peon in central government. Role of WWW has become more dominant than the knowledge and skill to work. I would rather say that future of banks under public sector has been spoilt by dirty officers whose intention is malicious and who served the bank only for his personal interest. 

Sickness in banks is growing, volume of NPA is increasing and attrition rate in banks is increasing year after due to

a.      A.   Misuse of power in lending, contractual work, recruitment, promotion, transfer etc.

b.       B. Abuse of best HRD policies to serve self interest

c.    C.    Ineffective judiciary due to which injustice is allowed to perpetuate

d.     D.  Senior intelligent and hard workers are constrained to work under junior, less talented and non-serious workers only because flattery and bribery played key role at all level in all activities.

Bank management should stop making lame excuses that seniors are not available or senior are not interested for promotion or junior are more talented. It is the vested interest of top few officials that they pick officers in higher scale from market and deprive the promotion chances of decades old officers available in their bank. It is ridiculous to listen that adequate number of good officers are not available in any bank or in any industry for promotion. It is totally mismanagement that such a situation has arisen even if it is assumed that such situation exists. Bitter truth is that all policies are framed in good way but executed in bad way. It is only the whims of members of interview panel which matters much because by giving 25 out of 25 these members can pull an inefficient person from bottom to top. If an officer has to be rejected , interview panel will give only 2 or 3 marks in interview which will nullify the effect of higher marks he or she got in annual appraisals.

It is absolutely unconstitutional to recruit directly from market an officer in higher scale when adequate numbers of experienced officers are present in the bank and who are waiting for promotion for decades as per old policies. Every year they change the policy to suit their mind and to deny someone and award some other. Banks can prosper in the hands of well experienced officers and not young MBA or highly qualified officers who do not have adequate exposure in bank. Volume of NPA is increasing in banks because young team of officers sitting at top and higher  posts whereas  senior and talented team of officers are subordinate to them . Offices who are boss know less than those who are working under them because of flattery culture n promotion process. Where no alternative ways is visible to ensure absolute justice it is better desirable to have totally seniority based promotion which will at least minimize misuse or abuse of HRD policies by whimsical top officials.