Allowed

State Bank of India v. Karnataka State Commission

Karnataka HC27 Mar 2024WP/10347/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged the State SC/ST Commission's recommendation directing SBI to employ a person on compassionate grounds. The High Court held the Commission lacked jurisdiction over service matters and quashed the recommendation.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Commission order dated 27.03.2023 (Annexure-A) quashed; respondent free to seek compassionate employment via proper requisition; interlocutory application disposed of.

State Bank of India Vs Karnataka State Commission — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:12608 WP No.10347 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.10347 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

STATE BANK OF INDIA LOCAL HEAD OFFICE NO.65, ST. MARKS' ROAD BENGALURU- 560 001 REP.BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (HR)

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

(BY SRI. T.P. MUTHANNA, ADV.,)

¶10

AND:

¶11

KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBES NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR, C.F.C. BUILDING NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU- 560 001.

¶12

SRI. CHETANA SADASHIVA KAMBALE SEVANAGARA TORAVI ROAD, NAVARASAPURA VIJAYAPURA - 586108.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, ADV., FOR R2)

¶15

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 27/03/2023 ISSUED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBES, BANGALORE, R-1 (ANNEXURE-A). GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:12608 WP No.10347 of 2023

¶18

TO STAY THE OPERATION OF THE ORDER DTD:27/03/2023 ISSUED BY THE R-1 (ANNEXURE-A).

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The captioned writ petition is filed by the Bank assailing the recommendation made by 1st respondent - Commission as per Annexure-A thereby calling upon petitioner - Bank to provide employment to 2nd respondent on compassionate grounds.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶23

learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Perused the records.

¶24

The short point that falls for consideration before

¶25

this Court is as to whether 1st respondent - Commission had jurisdiction to recommend and issue directions to the Bank to provide employment to 2nd respondent on compassionate grounds. The Apex Court and this Court in

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:12608 WP No.10347 of 2023

¶27

catena of judgments have consistently held that the Commissions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes have no jurisdiction to issue directions relating to service matters. The impugned recommendation / direction issued by 1st respondent - Commission as per Annexure-A is found to be in contravention of the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in W.P.No.26690/2023.

¶28

In the light of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court, impugned order being one without jurisdiction, is not sustainable and therefore, is liable to be set aside. For the foregoing reason, I proceed to pass the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

(i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶31

(ii) Impugned order dated 27.03.2023 passed by 1st respondent - Commission vide Annexure-A to the writ petition, is hereby quashed.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:12608 WP No.10347 of 2023

¶34

(iii) However, it is made clear that this order

¶35

shall not come in the way of 2nd respondent in making proper requisition requesting for employment on compassionate grounds.

¶36

In view of disposal of the petition, pending

¶37

interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

State Bank of India v. Karnataka State Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Karnataka State Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. M. S. Nandish Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri S R Sampath Kumar Vs the Chairman

Smt. Bhagyalakshmi C.N Vs the Chairman

Sri Vinay Kumar R Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Gangaraja S S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B K Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka