Allowed

Sethunath K.R. v. Union of India

Kerala HC13 Jan 2016WP(C)/38218/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retiring Indian Air Force personnel challenged their exclusion from a banking recruitment interview due to missing a specific certificate (Proforma-B). The Court held that existing No Objection and Discharge certificates sufficiently established their status, directing the nodal bank to call them for the interview.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners allowed; directed to call petitioners for interview within a month; integrated their marks; מישר to curb red tape for defense personnel.

Sethunath K.R. Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/23RD POUSHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 38218 of 2015 (B)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1. SETHUNATH K.R. AGED 39 YEARS (KIZHEKKAKUMAROTH RAJAPPAN SETHUNATH) S/O RAJAPPAN PILLAI, KRISHNAKRIPA HOUSE, AROOR PO CHERTHALA, PIN-688 534, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

¶8

2. SHAMEER BABU VAKKAYIL, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O KHADER, VAKKAYIL HOUSE, KARALMANNA PO PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679 506

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.M.P.RAMNATH SRI.P.RAJESH (KOTTAKKAL) SEI.M.VARGHESE VARGHESE SMT.UMA R.KAMATH SMT.S.SANDHYA SRI.BEPIN PAUL SRI.SHALU VARGHESE

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE NEW DELHI, PIN-100 001

¶12

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695 001

¶13

3. INDIAN AIR FORCE REPRESENTED BY CHIEF OF AIR STAFF, AIR HEAD QUARTERS VAYU BHAVANA, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI PIN-110 011

¶14

4. THE REGIONAL NODAL BANK OFFICER KERALA, REGIONAL RURAL BANKS (RRBS), A.K. ROAD, MALAPPURAM KERALA-676 505

¶15

....2

¶16

WP(C).No. 38218 of 2015 (B)

¶17

-2-

¶18

5. THE KERALA GRAMIN BANK RECRUITMENT CELL-HUMAN RESOURCES WING, HEAD OFFICE K.G.B. TOWERS, A.K.ROAD, MALAPPURAM KERALA-676 505, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER

¶19

6. INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION IBPS HOUSE, 90 FEET, DP ROAD NEAR THAKUR POLYTECHNIC OFF. WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY, POST BOX NO. 8587 KANDIVALI (E), MUMBAI-400 101, MAHARASHTRA

¶20

ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT IMPLEADED

¶21

ADDL.R7 UNION OF INDIAN, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 011.

¶22

ADDITIONAL 7TH RESPONDENT IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13.01.2016

¶23

R1,R3, ADDL.R7 BY SMT.PREMLATHA K. NAIR, CGC R5 BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAVI, SC, S.MALABAR G. BANK R6 BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR R6 BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH R6 BY ADV. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS R6 BY ADV. SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI R6 BY ADV. SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN R6 BY ADV. SRI.KURYAN THOMAS R6 BY ADV. SRI.NAVOD PRASANNAN PATTALI R1, R3, ADDL.R7 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.J. RAJASREE

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

WP(C).No. 38218 of 2015 (B)

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶28

EXT.P1:	TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DT. 25/3/15 BEARING SL NO. BRD/78/15 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXT.P2:	TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE ORDER DT. 13/1/15 ALONG WITH THE AMENDED LISTS DT. 17/4/15 AND 19/6/15, AS ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER
EXT.P3:	TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DT. 25/4/15 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXT.P4:	TRUE COPY OF THE NO DISCHARGE ORDER DT. 13/1/15 AS ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER
EXT.P5:	TRUE COPY OF THE NO ENTIRE ADVETISMENTS GIVEN BY 6TH RESPONDENT FOR RRBS-CWE-IV
EXT.P6:	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION WIH REGISTRATION NO. 1430119903 DT. 10/7/15 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER
EXT.P7:	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEWCALL LETTER ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETTIONER BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT, FOR INTERVIEW ON 19/11/15
EXT.P8:	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION WITH REGISTRATION NO. 1430042029 DT. 8/7/15 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT
EXT.P9:	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW CALL LETTER ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT, FOR INTERVIEW ON 19/11/15
EXT.P10:	TRUE COPY OF THE RO/2600/RW(NOC) DT. 11/2/13 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT-THROUGH THE AIR FORCE RECORD OFFCIE NEW DELHI
EXT.P11:	TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN REQUEST DT. 19/11/2015 SUBMITTED BY 1ST PETITIONER TO 4TH RESPONDENT, ON THE ASPECT OF NOT BEING PERMITTED TO ATTEND THE INTERVIEW FOR NO SUBMISSION OF PROFORMA B
EXT.P12:	TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN REQUEST DT. 19/11/2015 SUBMITTED BY 2ND PETITIONER TO 4TH RESPONDENT, ON THE ASPECT OF NOT BEING PERMITTED TO ATTEND THE INTERVIEW FOR NO SUBMISSION OF PROFORMA B

¶29

....2

¶30

WP(C).No. 38218 of 2015 (B)

¶31

-2-

¶32

EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL SENT DT. 19/11/15 (1.42 P.M) BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO 6TH RESPONDENT SEEKIN GCLARIFICATIONS AS TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF NOC IN LIEU OF PROFORMA B, WAS ALSO GIVEN TO THE PETITIONERS

¶33

EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN ENDORSEMENT DT. 19/11/15 GIVEN BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO 1ST PETITIONER

¶34

EXT.P15: TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN ENDORESMENT DT. 19/11/15 GIVEN BY 4TH RSPONDENT TO 2ND PETITIONER

¶35

EXT.P16: TRUE COPY OF THE CALL LETTER FOR PRELIMINARY ONLINE EXAMINATION (CWE) FOR RECRUITMENT OF CLERICAL CADRE IN PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS, DT. OF EXAM AS 6/12/15 AS ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER

¶36

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶37

ANNEXURE R6(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW ATTENDANCE LIST DATED 19.11.2015
ANNEXURE R6(B)	TRUE COPY OF THE CHECKLIST DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY CANDIDATE SHRI RAJESH P.R. TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 19.11.2015
ANNEXURE R6(C)	TRUE COPY OF THE PROFORMA B DATED 18.11.2015 SUBMITTED BY CANDIDATE SHRI RAJESH P.R.
ANNEXURE R6(D)	TRUE COPY OF THE PROFORMA C DATED 19.11.2015 SUBMITTED BY CANDIDATE SHRI. RAJESH P.R.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

JJJ

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶42

W.P.(C) No. 38218 of 2015 (B)

¶43

Dated this the 13^th day of January, 2016

¶44

The petitioners are Airmen in the rank of Sergeant

¶45

in the Indian Air Force, who are due to retire after 20 years of service and the grievance raised in the above writ petition is the refusal to permit them to participate in the interview, though they are qualified; on the technical objection of a certificate having not been proffered in the form prescribed.

¶46

The petitioner applied under Ext.P5 notification issued by the 6^th respondent, which is an Institute constituted by the Public Sector and other Banks for the purpose of carrying out selection of banking personnel in the various Banks, as requisitioned by the individual Banks. Ext.P5

¶47

W.P.(C) No. 38218/2015

¶48

-2-

¶49

notification is one for recruitment of Officers and Office Assistants in Regional Rural Banks; the list of the participating Banks having been specified in the notification itself. The notification also provides a reservation for Ex-Servicemen for appointment to both the cadre of Officers and Office Assistants and also permits serving personnel who are retiring on or before 27.7.2016 to apply to the posts, presumably for the reason of such vacancies being intended to be filled up only after 27.7.2016.

¶50

The petitioners applied for the same, qualified in the written examination and was called for interview. At the interview they were declined to be participated for reason of they having not produced a certificate in Proforma-B, as has been specified in Ext.P5 notification. As per clause J(ix), candidates who are still in the

¶51

W.P.(C) No. 38218/2015

¶52

-3-

¶53

Armed Forces and desirous of applying under Ex-Servicemen category has to submit Proforma-B from the Competent Authority showing his/her date of completion of specific period of engagement along with a self declaration in Proforma-C. There is no dispute with respect to the submission of a declaration under Proforma-C. The dispute stems from the fact that the certificate under Proforma-B was not submitted and in lieu of the same, as the Air Force authority mandates, the certificates at Exts.P1 and P2 with respect to the 1^st petitioner and those at Exts.P3 and P4 with respect to the 2^nd petitioner, was submitted.

¶54

The certificates being not in the Proforma specified, the 5^th respondent, who was the Nodal Bank entrusted with the duty of conducting interviews to the Regional Rural Banks within the State of Kerala, had

¶55

W.P.(C) No. 38218/2015

¶56

-4-

¶57

sought for a clarification from the 6^th respondent as to whether these petitioners could be participated in the interview on the basis of the No Objection Certificate and the Discharge Certificate produced. The request is said to have been declined by the 6^th respondent, pursuant to which the petitioners approached this Court.

¶58

The petitioners rely on Ext.P10 order issued by the Air Force Record Office, New Delhi, by which it has been specified that no separate certificate, indicating the bona fide status of servicemen and the discipline status, would be issued especially since the Air Force issues Discharge Certificate 14 months prior to the discharge of Air Force personnel. It was clarified that the Air Force personnel who seek employment to civil posts, claiming status as Ex-Servicemen, would have to produce the Discharge Certificate and No Objection

¶59

W.P.(C) No. 38218/2015

¶60

-5-

¶61

Certificate and cannot seek for any other certificate to be issued by the Air Force authorities on the basis of the notifications issued by the prospective employers.

¶62

The learned counsel for the petitioners would rely on Ext.P10 and further contend that in any event Exts. P1, P2, P3 and P4 would apprise the employer or the agency, entrusted with the selection, of the fact and specific date of discharge as also the discipline status of the Air Force personnel, as evidenced from the No Objection Certificate. The insistence for Proforma-B would render the provision for re-employment of service personnel, and the reservation and relaxation granted to them; as far as the Air Force personnel are concerned, nugatory. That is not what is intended by the specific reservation given to such class of personnel, considering their service for the country in the defense forces, is the argument

¶63

W.P.(C) No. 38218/2015

¶64

-6-

¶65

I have also heard the learned counsel for the

¶66

5^th and 6^th respondents. The learned Counsel for the 6^th respondent specifically points out that Ext.P5 indicates that the specific requirement as per the notification, would be production of a certificate under Proforma-B and the candidates cannot turn around to contend that an alternate certificate would suffice. It is also argued that, one another Air Force personnel had submitted the Proforma produced as Annexure R6(c) and, hence, the contention that the Air Force personnel are not issued with such certificates cannot be countenanced.

¶67

The 6^th respondent is not a statutory body and it is an Institute constituted by the participating Banks to facilitate a proper selection procedure for appointment to the different designated posts in the participating Banks. The participating Banks, insofar as

¶68

W.P.(C) No. 38218/2015

¶69

-7-

¶70

recruitment is concerned, are obliged to follow the rules and procedures as indicated by the 1^st respondent for recruitment of its personnel and is also obliged to give reservation to those specified by the 1^st respondent. It is as per the rules and regulations issued by the 1^st respondent that the service personnel are granted a reservation for appointment with relaxations available as specified. True, Ext.P5 notification insists on Proforma-B, but, that cannot render the rule of relaxation or reservation nugatory. The production of a certificate, as seen at Proforma-B, is a measure to ensure that only deserving personnel, having the status of service personnel and who would retire before the notified date without any possibility of a disciplinary proceeding being carried on against them, are considered for the specific posts, on re-employment.

¶71

W.P.(C) No. 38218/2015

¶72

-8-

¶73

The learned Counsel for the 6^th respondent would specifically point out that Proforma-B intends that the discharge should be on or before 27.7.2016 and also that no disciplinary case is pending against the officer. The later stipulation is insofar as ensuring that the personnel selected would be available for appointment and would not be hampered by any disciplinary proceedings continued, even after discharge. The certification to that end, would also indicate the candidates being not visited with any blemish in the intervening period. The insistence is for the reason that the discharge as such has not been occasioned, when the selection proceedings are carried on and would occur only at a later date.

¶74

In this context one has to look at Exts.P1, P2 P3 and P4. Ext.P1 is a No Objection Certificate permitting registration of the 1^st petitioner's name with

¶75

W.P.(C) No. 38218/2015

¶76

-9-

¶77

the Employment Exchange or to appear in any competitive examination and to apply for any civil post in Central/State Government Organisation, Para-Military Forces etc. The fact that the No Objection Certificate was issued on 25.3.2015 would itself indicate that there is no disciplinary proceeding pending against the petitioner and that his service in the Air Force was blemish free and the Air Force certifies that he is competent to be considered for reemployment in any of the civil posts in the organisations mentioned therein. Coupled with this, one has to look at Ext.P2, wherein, the amendment to Discharge Order, dated 19.6.2015 specifically shows the name of the 1^st petitioner at Sl. No.5 and his date of expiry of service is shown as 18.3.2016. Likewise, is the No Objection Certificate at Ext.P3, of the 2^nd petitioner and Ext.P4 indicates the date of expiry of service of the 2^nd

¶78

W.P.(C) No. 38218/2015

¶79

-10-

¶80

petitioner at Sl. No. 234 as on 18.3.2016.

¶81

The reliance placed on Annexure R6(c), as alertly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is not sustainable. Ext.R6(c) is seen signed by the Adjutant 33 Sqn. A.F. Proforma B, at the postscripts, indicates that for JCO's/ORs and equivalent of the Air Force, the certificate has to be issued by the Air Force Records, New Delhi. Hence, Annexure R6(c) is not one certified properly as stipulated in the notification itself. It is also pertinent that Ext.P10 instructions have been issued by the Air Force Records Office, New Delhi. On a combined reading of Ext.P10 with Exts. P1 and P2 and Exts. P3 and P4; it has to be held that the documents produced by the petitioners satisfy the stipulation in Ext.P5.

¶82

W.P.(C) No. 38218/2015

¶83

-11-

¶84

In such circumstance, this Court cannot countenance the arguments of respondents 5 and 6 that the petitioners would not be entitled to be participated in the interview. The certificates produced by them would suffice, insofar as the same being sufficient to evidence the factum that is sought to be ascertained from Proforma-B in Ext.P5. There shall be a direction to the 5^th respondent, who is the Nodal Bank conducting the recruitment, to call the petitioners for an interview within a month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and after the interview the marks shall be computed and they shall be accommodated in the mark list in accordance with the marks obtained by them, as provided in the notification.

¶85

In this context it has to be noticed that the defense personnel were unnecessarily dragged to this Court for reason of there being no clarity in the

¶86

W.P.(C) No. 38218/2015

¶87

-12-

¶88

stipulations which is due to there being no co-ordination between the departments of the Government, insofar as ensuring that eligible defense personnel are entitled and ensured re-employment on their discharge, from the Armed Forces. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance and the Secretary, Ministry of Defense, shall look into the matter and issue necessary instructions to facilitate the smooth re-employment of the defense personnel, without being hampered by technical rigmarole and tied up in unnecessary red tape. Respect and appreciation is due to defence personnel, not only when they are decorated, injured, maimed or killed in action. Even others, who are more lucky, all the same put their life and limb in danger; in the defense of their country and countrymen. 'Union of India, Represented by Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi - 110 011' is suo motu impleaded as the additional 7^th respondent.

¶89

W.P.(C) No. 38218/2015

¶90

-13-

¶91

Smt. Premlatha K. Nair, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, who appears for the 1^st respondent is directed to take notice for the additional 7^th respondent also. Necessary instructions shall be issued to avoid similar instances in the future. The 1^st respondent and the additional 7^th respondent shall conduct a joint meeting and ensure that necessary instructions are issued within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to both the 1^st respondent and the additional 7^th respondent.

¶92

The writ petition is allowed. No costs.

¶93

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶94

jjj 13/1/16

Sethunath K.R. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sethunath K.R. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satheesh P.V Vs Dr.a Kowsigan

Aneesh M.V. Vs the Kerala Water Authority

Chief Secretary to Government Vs P.Kochuneelakantan

Rajeesh Kumar G. Vs State of Kerala

C.R.Pradeep Vs Ranni Perunadu Grama Panchayat

Kavya S. Nair Vs Spices Board