The Human Resources Department (HRD) of Punjab National Bank (PNB) has recently announced the list of 288 candidates shortlisted for interviews and group discussions for promotion from Scale IV to Scale V. This list was prepared from a pool of 1,493 candidates who had cleared the written examination. However, the selection process has sparked controversy due to concerns about fairness and transparency.
How Candidates Were Selected
The bank combined two sets of marks to finalize the list: the written test scores and the Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) marks, also known as Performance Assessment Form (PAF) marks. While this method was intended to select the top 288 candidates, it has raised questions about fairness, especially for officers working in branches compared to those in administrative roles.
The Controversy: Unequal APAR Marks
The main issue lies in how APAR marks are awarded. For branch heads and officers working in branches, their APAR marks are based on a system-driven Performance Management System (PMS) that evaluates their quarterly budgetary performance. This process is automated and free from human bias. However, for officers in administrative roles, verticals, training centers, and other non-branch positions, APAR marks are given by their superiors based on “non-budgetary” performance. This method lacks quantification and is subjective, leading to a significant disparity in marks between branch officers and administrative officers of the same scale.
Previous Appeals Ignored
In a letter dated October 10, 2024, addressed to the then Managing Director (MD) and CEO, and copied to all Executive Directors (EDs), concerns were raised by AIPNBOA about this unfair system. The letter suggested that only written exam marks should be used to shortlist 3 to 4 times the number of candidates for interviews. After the interviews, APAR and other marks could be added to finalize the promotion list. However, this recommendation was not implemented.
Managerial Bias in Marks
Another issue highlighted is the inconsistent awarding of managerial dimension marks by Circle Heads. For example, in some cases, officers who scored 60 out of 60 in PMS performance were given only 1 or 2 out of 30 marks by their Circle Heads. A sample list of 15 circles was submitted to the MD and EDs, showing this discrepancy. This bias further disadvantages branch officers, as their hard work is not adequately reflected in their APAR marks.
Disproportionate Representation of Branch Officers
Out of the 288 candidates selected for interviews, only 44 are from General Banking branches. This number is even more concerning when considering that many of these 44 officers were previously in administrative roles and received their APAR marks while working there. If these officers are excluded, the actual number of branch officers in the shortlist would be much lower than 44.
Calls for Immediate Correction
The controversy has led to calls for immediate corrective action. It has been suggested that all officers who ranked above serial number 289 based solely on written exam marks should be added to the interview list. This would increase the number of candidates from the current 288 and ensure a fairer selection process. The MD and CEO have the authority to make this change, even at this late stage.
Increased Vacancies Offer an Opportunity
The Department of Financial Services (DFS) recently increased the number of senior and top management vacancies. PNB is set to add 117 Scale V officers over the next three years, with 39 vacancies to be filled this year. This provides an opportunity to address the current imbalance by increasing the number of promotions and ensuring that deserving branch officers are not overlooked.
A Plea for Fairness
The controversy has highlighted the need for a level playing field in the promotion process. Officers working in branches, who are often the backbone of the bank’s operations, feel demotivated by the current system. Correcting this imbalance would not only ensure justice for branch officers but also send a strong message that the bank values their hard work and dedication.
