Petitioner, selected as Executive Trainee via DMRC recruitment for BMRCL, challenged her contract-basis appointment order and subsequent relief from duty. The court held the notification contemplated temporary appointment subject to two-year probation, found she refused the offer voluntarily, and dismissed the writ petition.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.24234 OF 2012 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
MISS DEEPMALA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, D/O SHRI OM PRAKASH HOUSE NO.38, BATA COLONY, BARNALA ROAD, SIRSA-125 055(HARAYANA)
...PETITIONER
(By SMT. KSHAMA NARAGUND, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SONA VAKKUND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
NEW DELHI.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI KUMAR M.N., CGC FOR R1 SRI HARIKRISHNA S. HOLLA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI K KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-F AND H NO.BMRCLHRDPGD-Metro-IIT 2009/2731 DATED 29.8.2009 ANNEXURE-F ISSUED BY RESPONDENT -2 AND ENDORSEMENT NO.BMRCL/EO/HRD/PGDIIT/2009 DATED 12.9.2009 VIDE ANNEXURE-H ISSUED BY RESPONDENT-2.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 02.04.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed pertaining to a dispute arising out of appointment of petitioner as an Assistant Executive Engineer in respondent No.2-Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘BMRCL’). The petitioner is contesting the nature of appointment offered to her, asserting that it was supposed to be a permanent position as per the recruitment
3
notification issued by respondent No.3-Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘DMRCL’).
4
respondents. Perused the records.
5
appointment order issued by respondent No.2 runs contrary to the recruitment notification issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-A.
“8. Other terms and conditions are mentioned below:
i. Your appointment as Assistant Manager shall be initially on temporary basis but may be made permanent later on in terms of Company rules. You will undergo two years probation in the grade of AM or extended probation as the case may be.
ii. Your appointment and continuance in the service shall be subject to your character and antecedent being found satisfactory.”
6
Executive Trainees also contemplates that after induction as Assistant Manager, the selected candidate has to undergo probation for a period of two years.
7
respondent No.2 as per Annexure-F, petitioner was called upon to accept the appointment by signing and returning the duplicate copy of appointment letter sent by respondent No.2 within 15 days. Further, Annexure-H which is endorsement dated 12.09.2009 also reveals that as petitioner refused to accept the offer of appointment citing concerns about the nature of appointment being on contract basis and therefore, no indulgence can be granted by this Court. The contention that appointment was on contract basis and therefore, the petitioner was justified in not accepting, is not supported by the language of the notification which clearly indicates temporary appointment subject to probation.
8
appointment within the stipulated timeframe, petitioner persisted in her refusal, leading to respondent No.2 relieving petitioner from duty as it is evident vide Annexure-H dated 12.09.2009.
9
to confirmation based on successful completion of
probationary term.
“6. We find that the real grievance of the applicant is in respect of the appointment order
10
issued by Bangalore Metro on 29.08.2009 (Annexure A/7) whereby she was offered the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) on contract basis. From the papers filed by the applicant it is seen that she had, in fact, joined at BMRCL. In her representation to the Company Secretary & GM (HR) (Annexure A/9) she had mentioned that she is governed by a bond of Rs.5 Lakh to serve BMRCL for a period of 5 years, including the training period. In other words, she knew of the fact that the bond executed by her had been transferred to BMRCL and she was under obligation to serve that organization. She has herself filed the letter of BMRCL dated 12.09.2009 by which her request for change in terms and conditions of the offer of appointment was rejected. She got herself relieved on her own volition from BMRCL as seen from the letter dated 16.09.2009 of that organization (Annexure A/14).
6.1 It shows very clearly that if she had any cause of action, it was against BMRCL. She could not have unilaterally reported herself before BMRCL and claimed salary for the period after her relief from Bangalore Metro. Therefore, we do not see any justification to interfere with the impugned order of respondent No.1.”
11
12
pass the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed.
Pending I.As.’, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of accordingly.
Sd/JUDGE
CA
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was entitled to permanent appointment as Assistant Manager under the DMRC recruitment notification despite the contract-basis appointment order issued by BMRCL.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Miss Deepmala
Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development
Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (DMRC)
Sachin Shankar Magadum
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
