Dismissed

Radhakrishnan v. the Regional Manager

Kerala HC18 Oct 2013WP(C)/18172/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a Gold Appraiser engaged on specific non-bank service terms, challenged his termination. The Court held that the appointment letter explicitly allowed termination at any time and the post was not in the bank's cadre, so no fundamental right to job security existed. A remedy was denied as termination was based on performance dissatisfaction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's request to quash termination notice and stay of work was denied; prayer for directions to dispose of representation also denied.

Radhakrishnan Vs the Regional Manager — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/26TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 18172 of 2013 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

RADHAKRISHNAN 'SOUPARNIKA', MANTHARA, EDAVA, VARKALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

THE REGIONAL MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, GOPAL BUILDING THYVILA ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695001.

¶11

THE BRANCH MANAGER

¶12

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, VARKALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695142.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN BY ADV. SRI.K.M.ANEESH BY ADV. SRI.S.NIKHIL SANKAR BY ADV. SRI.ADARSH KUMAR

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 18172 of 2013 (V)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶18

EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER DATED 6/10/05.

¶19

EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 8/5/2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶20

EXT.P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL

¶22

//TRUE COPY//

¶23

P.A.TO JUDGE

¶24

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶25

==========================

¶26

W.P.(C). No.18172 OF 2013 ==========================

¶27

Dated this the 18^th day of October, 2013

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The petitioner was working as Gold Appraiser in the Central Bank of India, Varkala Branch on the strength of Ext.P1. Ultimately, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P2 notice terminating his service as Gold Appraiser. On its receipt, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation requiring the manager of the said branch of Central Bank of India to review the decision in Ext.P2. Despite the receipt of Ext.P3, the decision in Ext.P2 was not reviewed. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed mainly with the prayer to quash Ext.P2 and to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service. An alternative prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to dispose of Ext.P3 is also sought for.

¶30

W.P.(C).18172/13

¶31

¶32

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶33

learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. Obviously, the petitioner was working as Gold Appraiser on the strength of Ext.P1. In the context of the contentions it is relevant to refer to Ext.P1 which carries the conditions of the petitioner's engagement as

¶34

hereunder:-

¶35

We are pleased to inform you that your application for the new gold appraiser to the branch has been approved by our worthy Asst.General Manager. In this regard it is informed to you that this appointment is to appraise the jewels likely to be pledged to the Bank for availing finance. This service is not a part of the Bank's service and will not be considered as Bank's service at any point of time. The Bank has the full liberty to terminate your service at any point of time.

¶36

The petitioner appears to have been aggrieved by the

¶37

reasons stated for termination of his service viz., dissatisfaction with his performance during his tenure of service. Obviously, Ext.P2 would reveal that the decision to terminate his service was taken as

¶38

W.P.(C).18172/13 3

¶39

the bank did not satisfy with his performance. In the context of the contentions it is relevant to note that in Ext.P1, it was made very specifically clear that the service of the Gold Appraiser is not a part of the bank's service and would not be considered as bank's service at any point of time. Going by Ext.P1, the Bank also reserved liberty to terminate the service of the petitioner at any point of time. Ext.P2 would reveal that on account of the dissatisfaction with the performance of the petitioner as Gold Appraiser, the respondents have issued notice intimating the petitioner that his service would stand terminated from the 30^th day of receipt of the said notice.

¶40

The first respondent has filed a statement in this writ

¶41

petition. The statements therein are made in tune with and also to support the decision in Ext.P2.

¶42

Obviously, the petitioner did not have a case that he was

¶43

holding a post borne in the cadre of the respondent Bank or he was

¶44

W.P.(C).18172/13

¶45

¶46

appointed pursuant to any notification issued by the Bank and after subjecting him to a process of regular selection. The petitioner was engaged as per Ext.P1. It is obvious from Ext.P1 that in unambiguous terms, it was made clear that the service of Gold Appraiser would not be treated as part of the bank's service and the petitioner would be

¶47

terminated from service as Gold Appraiser at any point of time. The petitioner accepted the engagement fully understanding those conditions and with open eyes. The petitioner did not dispute the factum of serving of notice of termination on him. So also, there is no dispute with respect to the fact that Ext.P1 contained such conditions. No provision has been brought to my notice by the petitioner to substantiate his claim that he has entered into the service of the Central Bank of India or that he is entitled to get all protection of a regularly recruited employee of the said Bank. As noticed hereinbefore, the post of Gold Appraiser is not a post borne in the cadre of Central Bank of India and that fact is made very clear in Ext.P1. When the post of Gold Appraiser is not borne in the cadre of

¶48

W.P.(C).18172/13

¶49

¶50

Central Bank of India and the mere fact that the petitioner was engaged for sometime as Gold Appraiser could not and would not confer any indefeasible right on him to claim continuance in the post . If a particular post is not borne in the cadre of any particular service there cannot be any question of conducting a regular appointment after conducting a regular process of selection. Merely because a person's service was utilised in a particular manner with specific conditions it cannot confer any right to claim for continuance on the concerned person. In other words, based on Ext.P1, the petitioner cannot contend that the respondents should be insisted to continue with his engagement. When it is evident that respondents are dissatisfied with the performance of the petitioner in terms of the conditions in Ext.P1 it is certainly within their liberty to terminate the service of the petitioner. The order of termination was ordered to be taken its effect only on the 30^th day of receipt of the said notice. When an engagement of a person as Gold Appraiser is terminated on being dissatisfied with his performance, the person concerned cannot,

¶51

W.P.(C).18172/13

¶52

¶53

as a matter of right, claim that the respondents should be compelled to continue to engage him as Gold Appraiser. No provision was relied on by the petitioner to fortify his contentions. The conditions in Ext.P1 also would not lend any support to the claim or contentions raised by the petitioner. In the absence of any relevant provision of law regulating conditions of service of Gold Appraiser or any conditions in Ext.P1 the action on the part of the respondents in disengaging the petitioner as Gold Appraiser cannot be interfered with. In other words, the prayer of the petitioner for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P2 cannot be upheld. No case for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to dispose of Ext.P3 was also made out by the petitioner. If the petitioner's engagement was taken as contract appointment going by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) case [2006 (4) SCC 1] the petitioner cannot claim for continuance or regularisation. In view of the reasons expatiated earlier, the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, claim for a

¶54

W.P.(C).18172/13

¶55

¶56

consideration of Ext.P3 and when it is evident that the engagement of the petitioner as Gold Appraiser was terminated by respondents on account of dissatisfaction with his performance the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for. In the result, this writ petition is liable to fail and accordingly, it is dismissed.

¶57

Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)

spc/

W.P.(C).18172/13

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶62

JUDGMENT

¶63

September, 2010

¶64

W.P.(C).18172/13 9

Radhakrishnan v. the Regional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhakrishnan v. the Regional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jahangir Kasim Vs State of Kerala

P.K. Sivasankaran Vs Sitaram Textiles Ltd.

N. Ramaswamy Vs State of Kerala

J.M.Krishnan Vs State of Kerala

Priyanka Devadas Vs the Regional Deputy Director

K.a.Stella Vs Kerala Water Authority