Dismissed

B.K.Sandhya v. Union of India

Kerala HC30 Nov 2018WP(C)/3163/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed this writ petition where the petitioner sought direction for re-employment and consideration for the written test after her contract termination. The court held the Bank could not be compelled to take her if no similar appointments are made and that procedural bars do not apply if the test is notified for eligible applicants.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no direction for re-employment or admission in written test granted.

B.K.Sandhya Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 3163 of 2014

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

B.K.SANDHYA AGED 31 YEARS D/O. K.M.KESHAVAN, BINDHU NIVAS, KARACHAL P.O., MEENANGADI, WAYANAD-673591.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.MANU GOVIND SRI.S.SABARINADH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI.

¶11

2 CANARA BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, 112, J.C.ROAD, BANGALORE-560002.

¶12

3 DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER HUMAN RESOURCES WING, CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, NO. 112, J.C.ROAD, BANGALORE-560002.

¶13

BY ADVS. ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL SRI.P.GOPINATH

¶14

SMT.O.M.SHALINA,CGC,FOR R1 SRI. M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIARFOR R2&R3

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 3163 of 2014

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner seeks a direction to the

¶20

respondents to re-employ her and to give her a

¶21

chance to appear in the written test for entering into regular service.

¶22

The petitioner was appointed in the 2^nd respondent bank as an Investment Officer on 27.10.2009 on contract basis for a period of 3 years. However, even before she completed the contract period, her services were terminated as per letter dated 28.02.2011 on the ground that she did not achieve the target fixed in terms of the contract. Ext.P1 letter of termination was challenged before this Court filing W.P(C) No.13251 of 2012. As per Ext.P3 judgment dated 08.06.2012 the writ petition was dismissed observing that a fresh relieving letter shall be issued to the petitioner without attaching any stigma for such termination of the contract.

¶23

Though she filed a Writ Appeal, it was disposed of as per Ext.P5 judgment dated 14.08.2012 in

¶24

WP(C).No. 3163 of 2014 3

¶25

which the Division Bench did not find any necessity to interfere. However, it was observed that if the bank makes the same type of shortterm appointments for canvassing deposit, the Bank should consider the appellant also. The petitioner claims that she submitted Ext.P6 representation dated 29.10.2012 which was rejected as per Ext.P7; again she submitted Ext.P8 representation dated 11.12.2012, which

¶26

was rejected as per Ext.P9 letter dated 25.02.2013; Ext.P10 representation dated 24.08.2013 which was also rejected as per Ext.P11 letter. The petitioner submitted Ext.P12 representation dated 12.12.2013 before the Member Secretary of Kerala State Legal Services Authority, to which the 3^rd respondent submitted Ext.P13 reply. In all those representations, the petitioner requested for re-appointment pointing out her difficulties on account of the premature termination of the contract appointment. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition in the above circumstances, alleging that she is not

¶27

WP(C).No. 3163 of 2014 4

¶28

even allowed to appear for the written test;

¶29

whereas her batch mates were absorbed on regular basis.

¶30

statement stating that the respondents were not

¶31

making any short-term appointments for similar posts. The contention of the respondents is that

¶32

the claim against termination of her appointment

¶33

was already concluded by Exts.P3 and P5

¶34

judgments. Therefore repeated representations

¶35

could not serve any purpose. It is stated that

¶36

the petitioner is free to submit application as

¶37

and when applications are called for.

¶38

petitioner Sri.Suresh B.S, learned Standing

¶39

Counsel Sri.M Gopikrishnan Nambiar and Smt. O.M Shalina, learned Central Government Counsel. The petitioner has not produced any material to show that the respondent Bank had made any short-term

¶40

appointments. The only direction in Ext.P5

¶41

judgment of the Division Bench was that the petitioner has to be considered, in case similar

¶42

WP(C).No. 3163 of 2014 5

¶43

type of appointments are resorted to by the Bank

¶44

on contract basis. Even though the petitioner

¶45

has stated that her batch mates were reappointed and they were regularized, not even the name of a person who was appointed on short term basis is pointed out by the petitioner. In the above circumstances, the respondent Bank cannot be compelled to consider the petitioner for any short term appointment, in case they are not resorting to such method of appointment.

¶46

The further grievance of the petitioner

¶47

is that the respondents are not permitting her to appear in the written test for entering into regular service. In case the respondents issue any notification and in case the petitioner is

¶48

eligible in all respects, nothing can prevent the petitioner from submitting her application. In that event there cannot be any objection for

¶49

the respondents for considering her application in accordance with law.

¶50

WP(C).No. 3163 of 2014

¶51

¶52

Therefore Writ Petition is dismissed with

¶53

the above observations.

Sd/-

P.V.ASHA

JUDGE

WP(C).No. 3163 of 2014

¶58

¶59

APPENDIX

¶60

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶61

EXHIBIT P1	EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE TERMINATION LETTER DATED 28.02.2011
EXHIBIT P2	EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER DATED 28.02.11
EXHIBIT P3	EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.13251/2012
EXHIBIT P4	EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA DATED 07.08.12
EXHIBIT P5	EXHIBIT P5 : THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.1477/2012 DATED 14.08.12
EXHIBIT P6	EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN TO ASST.G.M DATED 29.10.12
EXHIBIT P7	EXHIBIT P7 : THE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02.01.2013 SERVED BY THE ASST. GENERAL MANAGER
EXHIBIT P8	EXHIBIT P8 : THE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CENTRAL MINISTRY DATED 11.12.12
EXHIBIT P9	EXHIBIT P9 : THE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE ASST.GENERAL MANAGER DATED 25.02.13
EXHIBIT P10	EXHIBIT P10 : THE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.08.13
EXHIBIT P11	EXHIBIT P11 : THE COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12.09.13
EXHIBIT P12	EXHIBIT P12 : THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON.MEMBER SECRETARY OF KERALA STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY DATED 12.12.2013
EXHIBIT P13	EXHIBIT P13 : THE COPY OF THE REPLY

¶62

WP(C).No. 3163 of 2014

¶63

¶64

GIVEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY DATED NIL

¶65

B.K.Sandhya v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.K.Sandhya 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Padmalayam @ Padmalochanan Vs State of Kerala

K.Shajitha Vs State of Kerala

Rasheed M. Vs State of Kerala

S.N.Sobha Vs Smt. Anila

Faseela @ Molly Basheer Vs District Collector

K. Reghu Vs the Director Board, Kerala Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd.