The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed this writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's representation for regularization of service. The court held that limited vacancies and service duration criteria justified the bank's decision.
Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.
W(!9i>
^b L.1'1
HIGH COURTOF JUDICATU&E AT JABALPUR
| PETmONER: RESPONDENTS: |
W.P.No. 6 1. |
e62-)of2000 Shri Radheshyam Ishwar Chand KaTar, years, Occupation: Koshtapara,Raigarh( Versus State Bank of India, Chief Manager, Department, Local Bhopal. |
Dansena, S/o aged about 33 none, R/o M.P.). Through: its Personnel Head OfFice, |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2. | The Assistant Gen Region-V, Regional Bankoflndia,Raipur |
eral Manager, Office, State (M.P.). |
|
| 3. | The Branch Manager, India, Chakradharn Raigarh(M.P.). |
State Bank of agar Branch, |
WRITPETITIONUNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE t:K CONSTTTUTION OF NDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPMATE .•^^°<A WBCT A&i
^ yC
'\ ^ ^..
HIGH C'OUm' OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU:
!/' P W . 6062 of 2000
Shri Radheshvam Dansena
Bank oflndia & others
CWRII PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUI10K np ^.^.^JJ^IT^,mT -i V.f ^.
(SB:_ Hon'hle Mi^N.K. Agarwa!, J.)
ent : Shri Raiendra Tripathi, Advocate fbr the petitioner. Shri PR Patankar, Advocate for the respondeiits.
^'0.-.^—-.^..-^— Art? -S-^ '^O'i'2\ U~"assea on yA.iA.AUU)
Challenge m this pention is to the order dated 04.11.1999 (.Annexure P.'l) by which the petitioner's represeiiTatioa has been rejected by the respondents/Bank.
Learced counse] appeanng fbr the petmoner submits that the petitionerwasengagedinthesen'icesot therespondeat'Banka.'id has worked fbr a more than six years. A circulsr issued by the '•espondent Bank (Anaexure P/5) provided that the temporar;' appointments shou'd be .(Jiscontinued aad chance may be given to the candidates listed in protected employses categoty. T3ie petitionerwas grantedappomtmeDt m the year1985;whichmeans that-he was not temporary empioyee, and bad also appeared in the mterview and has been paid regular j-.aj. pay scale- increments and allowances. Sicce the petitioner was not regularized in service, he filed a wrrt pstition betbre ths High Court ot' Madhya Praxiesh,
?(w
3,
being WP No. 466Cf/98. The said petitioa was disposed of on 24.08.1999 in view ofthe settlemeBl: between tiie petitioner and the respondent Banlc. Pitrsuaiit to said order,, The petitionsr made a representation on 20.09.1999 (Aainexurs P'll) for regulanzstion of his services whjc'a was reiected vide impugned order. Shn Tripaht. lurther submits ttiat some ot' the similariy situated employees who have worked tbr a lesser period than the petitioner have been regularized in ssrvice, ignoring tfie claim of the petitioner, who is better quaufied asd has ivorked for more penod. On the othsr hano, leamed counsel appearing tbr the respondeirts Baak submits that for interviewing ths eligible candidatss. .mterview committed was c-onstitiited, On!y atter beiag foiind suitable in the inten'iew, the candidates v^'ere wait listed senionty vvise i.e. suitable candidates having vvorked more number ot days w.s.f 01.07.1975 to 14.08,1991 were placed in the top and the candidates with lesser number wers placed in the desceadisg order. Wait listed candidates were ofiered oermanent appointments seniority a'ise to the extent of availability of vacancy. He farther submits that no eligibk candidate who have worked less than the petitioner have been given permanent appo'intment. The last candidate offered appointment in categoty "C" has worked &r 165 days. As per the agreement for fiiling up of the vacaacies the waist list lapsed as on 31.03.1997 and pursuant to the said agreensents the Barik issued instroctions to
^t -/
Branches for terminating temporary/daily vi'age employees vv'.e.f. 01.04.1997. The petitionsr has already been retreached m the year 1999 and is no longer in service ofihe respondent Bank.
Shri Palankar mrther subniits that the petitioner has worked only ibr 64 days. His representatioii iva^. considered and rejeoted s.rictly in terms of the order passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Wp No. 4660/98.
Heard leaned counse] appearing ibr the parties, perossd tiie plea.dings and documents appended thereto.
On perusal ofthe impugned order (Ajinexure P'l), it is clear that as per the agreement/settlemsnt, the temporaty sen/ice put up by a candidate from 01.07.1975 to 14.08.1991 was to be reckoned ibr eligibility and selection, subject to the vacancies arising till 1994. Since the petitioner had put oniy 64 days of temporai')' service, and in view of limited vacancies, his claim could not be accepted for appointment on pennanent basis. Thus, the same was nghtly icjcys.su.**£a1d^T^f^
The conte&tioa of the petitioner that other persons who had worksd for lesser period and have beea granted psmianent empioyment, is also unfounded as the same has been explained by the rsspondent Banlc in its retiirn in response to para 10 & 13, in which it is evident that Dvvarika Pra-sad Ganda was a candida.te of SC category, and therefore, ths petitioner's case cannot be
./ ^.-.
^s
compared with Dwarika Prasad Gaada. Thus, this court does not find any illegality or perversity in the order impugned (Annsxure P/1V
Accordinglv, this petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. No
order as to costs.
Sd/N.K.AgarwaI' Judge
'5ahu )
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's claim for regularization of service was legally rejected considering limited vacancies and criteria.
Whether the consideration of other candidates and seniority principles rendered the rejection order perverse.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri Radheshyam Dansena
State Bank of India
Chief Manager
Regional Manager
Branch Manager
N.K. Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
