A Delhi High Court judgment dated 9 September 2026 dismissed a retired Bank of Baroda deputy general manager’s claim for retrospective promotion from a 2016 reserve list. The court said the bank’s policy permitted management to leave a vacancy unfilled.
What the High Court decided
The Delhi High Court dismissed a retired Bank of Baroda officer’s request for retrospective promotion in its 9 September 2026 judgment. The petitioner, Ravi Kant Thakral, was first on a three-person reserve list prepared during the bank’s 2016 promotion exercise for general managers. His case was that posts became vacant before that list expired and the bank should have appointed him from 1 December 2016. Justice Sanjeev Narula held that the governing promotion policy did not oblige the bank to operate the reserve list simply because a vacancy arose.
The case is Ravi Kant Thakral v. Bank of Baroda, W.P.(C) 5601/2019, neutral citation 2026:DHC:7779. The ruling interprets the bank’s particular policy and the case’s facts; it is not a uniform rule for all public-sector banks or regional rural banks.
How the promotion dispute arose
Thakral had served the bank since April 1978, became Deputy General Manager in May 2014 and retired in April 2018. The 2016 selection process concerned promotion from TEG/S-VI (deputy general manager) to TEG/S-VII (general manager). Three candidates were selected directly; a wait list and a separate reserve list addressed possible later requirements. The petitioner ranked first on the reserve list but twentieth overall; the list was valid until 1 April 2017.
He argued that additional vacancies arising from December 2016 should have been filled from the reserve list. He also referred to earlier years when reserve-list candidates were promoted and to a proposal to increase general-manager posts from 43 to 46. The bank replied that management could keep vacancies unfilled and that none of the three officers on this reserve list was promoted.
Why the reserve list did not create a vested right
The court examined clauses 11.8 through 11.10 of the bank’s promotion policy together. Those provisions allowed management to retain vacancies unfilled for administrative reasons and described release of wait-list promotions as discretionary. A reserve list identifies an order of preference if the authority chooses to use it; it does not automatically require the filling of every vacant post. Because the whole reserve list was not operated, the petitioner had not established selective treatment in his favour or against him on that ground.
A proposed increase in sanctioned strength was not itself an appointment order. The court rejected the claimed entitlement to retrospective promotion and related benefits. Other preliminary objections were not necessary to resolve in order to decide the petition.
What this means for bankers and promotion teams
- Check the actual bank rules: Vacancy calculations, reserve-list validity, promotion discretion and procedures for recording reasons may differ by institution and cadre.
- Distinguish ranking from appointment: Being first on a reserve list can give priority if it is operated, but not necessarily an enforceable right to a post.
- Maintain HR records: Promotion departments should preserve approvals, list expiry dates and documented decisions about whether vacancies will be filled.
- Do not overgeneralise: A separate policy that mandates promotion or credible evidence of unequal treatment could produce a different legal outcome.
Dates and current status
The reserve list related to 2016 and expired in April 2017. The officer retired in 2018. The court’s judgment was delivered on 9 September 2026 and is covered here as a significant older banker-service decision recovered in research, not a new November court order. A subsequent appeal or stay was not established in the inspected sources.
Sources and References
Please consult the cited sources and check the exact applicability of any legal or employment change. Corrections are welcomed.
Join the discussion