Writ petition challenging posted exclusion in 2022 SBI security guard recruitment empowering exclusions by age. Petitioners met criteria. Court held no malafides but process lacks rationality.
Writ petition dismissed. No costs. Respondent Bank to look into and streamline the recruitment process.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
k 1/3 36 wp 4971 of 22 as.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4971 OF 2022
Prakash Shankar Palande & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Chief General Manager of The State Bank of India & Anr. ...Respondents
Mr. Rakesh R. Bhatkar for the Petitioners. Mr. Abhijeet A. Joshi for Respondent No.1.
… CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACJ & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 11 APRIL 2023.
P.C.:
1 The Petitioners challenge the recruitment process undertaken by the Respondent in the year 2022 for filling the post of Security Guards from Ex-servicemen category.
2 Mr. Bhatkar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners complied with all the eligibility criteria. The Petitioners names were recommended by the Sainik Board. There were six eligibility criteria provided. The Petitioners confirmed to all the criteria still the names of Petitioners are not shortlisted nor the Petitioners are considered for appointment. The said process is illegal. According to the learned Counsel there was no reason for the Respondent to exclude the names of the
1/3
katkam
k 2/3 36 wp 4971 of 22 as.doc
Petitioners. No purpose would serve by further shortlisting the candidates from the ratio of 1:20.
3 Mr. Joshi, the learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the younger age profile candidates are preferred, there were 210 posts shown for Ratnagiri Division and 390 posts for Pune Division. The shortlisting has to be done in the ratio of 1:5. The oldest candidate shortlisted is born in the year 1980 for Ratnagiri Division. The Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are born in the year 1980 and 1977 respectively as such they are excluded.
5 No doubt in the letter dated 27 October 2021 the eligibility criteria is laid down and is also further suggested that Ex-servicemen of younger age profile and preferably from fighting arms were requested from the Rajya Sainik Board. It appears that Rajya Sanik Board had sent 120 names for Ratnagiri Division. The Respondent shortlisted 60 names of the candidates from younger age profile. The reliance is placed on the standard operating procedure for recruitment of Armed Guards wherein the candidates are to be shortlisted in the ratio of 1:5. Accordingly the Respondent shortlisted 60 candidates for Ratnagiri Division as the vacancies and those candidates with younger age profile were shortlisted. Admittedly the Petitioners are senior in age to the oldest candidates shortlisted.
2/3
katkam
k 3/3 36 wp 4971 of 22 as.doc
part of the Respondent in conduct of the selection process. In view of that no relief can be granted to the Petitioners.
7 However, we are constrained to observe that the recruitment process adopted by the Respondent does not appear to be reasonable and rational. Candidates are called in the ratio of 1:20. Then there is no further reason for shortlisting the candidates in the ratio 1:5. No purpose would be served for calling candidates from serial number 6 to 20. The Respondent-Bank shall look into the same. When upper age limit is already provided and preference to the younger age profile would be only if all parameters are same. The Respondent is required to streamline its process of recruitment.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
(ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Digitally signed by SUDARSHAN SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM RAJALINGAM KATKAM KATKAM Date: 2023.04.15 11:47:22 +0530
3/3
katkam
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the exclusion of petitioners from recruitment for security guards post is malafide.
Whether the recruitment selection process adopted by the respondent bank is reasonable and rational.
Whether preference for younger age profile justifies excluding senior candidates accepting all eligibility criteria.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Prakash Shankar Palande & Ors.
Chief General Manager of The State Bank of India & Anr.
S.V. Gangapurwala
Sandeep V. Marne
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
