Dismissed

Charle Thomas v. North Malabar Gramin Bank

Kerala HC10 Mar 2021WP(C)/25913/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed two writ petitions challenging the selection process for temporary messengers in North Malabar Gramin Bank. The court held that local engagement by branch managers for sweeping lacked valid appointment and no assurance was proved for the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions lacking merit were dismissed; no order for inclusion of names in the select list was passed.

Charle Thomas Vs North Malabar Gramin Bank — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2021/19TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.25913 OF 2011(L)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 CHARLE THOMAS, PANICKARIDAM, AARPOOKARA EAST P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶8

2 SARITHA BABU, SAMARUDA, KOTTAPURAM PARAVUR SOUTH, KOLLAM.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, N.M.G. TOWERS, POST PALLIKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670 004.

¶12

2 THE CHAIRMAN, NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, N.M.G. TOWERS, POST PALLIKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670 004.

¶13

3 THE BRANCH MANAGER, NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, KURUPPANTHARA BRANCH, KOTTAYAM 686603.

¶14

4 THE BRANCH MANAGER, NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, SOUTH PARAVOOR BRANCH, KOLLAM 691 301.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-03-2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).28832/2011(D), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) Nos.25913 & 28832 of 2011

¶17

: 2 :

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶19

PRESENT

¶20

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶21

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2021/19TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶22

WP(C).No.28832 OF 2011

¶23

PETITIONERS:

¶24

RAJANI K.P., D/O P.KUNHIRAMAN, KARATT HOUSE, KANAKAPPALLI POST, VIA PARAPPA, KASARGOD DISTRICT-671533

¶25

BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN

¶26

RESPONDENTS:

¶27

1 NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,

¶28

N.M.G. TOWERS, POST PALLIKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670004

¶29

2 THE CHAIRMAN, NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, N.M.G. TOWERS, POST PALLIKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670004 3 THE BRANCH MANAGER, NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, PARAPPA BRANCH, KASARAGOD DISTRICT -671533

¶30

R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.ANEESH

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-03-2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).25913/2011(L), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

WP(C) Nos.25913 & 28832 of 2011

: 3 :

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dated this the 10^th day of March, 2021

¶37

[WP(C) Nos.25913 & 28832 of 2011]

¶38

The petitioners in these writ petitions seek to command the respondents to include the name of the petitioners as well in the select list of temporary Messengers and to direct the respondents to reserve posts of temporary Messenger/Office Attendant (multi purpose) in the service of the Bank.

¶39

The petitioners state that they were appointed in the service of North Malabar Gramin Bank, the 1^st respondent. The post of Messenger/Sweeper cum Office Attendant (multi purpose) in the service of the Bank is a Group C post. As per Recruitment Rules, the said post is required to be filled up by direct recruitment.

¶40

WP(C) Nos.25913 & 28832 of 2011

¶41

: 4 :

¶42

The petitioners contend that in the absence of any directly recruited persons, the Bank was engaging persons on temporary basis. The persons like the petitioners, who were temporarily engaged, were permitted to continue in service for a considerably long time.

¶43

The Unions took up the issue of regularisation of such employees. The management agreed that persons working on temporary basis in the Bank will be given age relaxation and certain percentage of vacancies will be reserved for them.

¶44

Though there was such an understanding, no effective steps were taken by the Bank to regularise the services of the persons like the petitioners who were working on temporary basis. Therefore, W.P.(C) No.26742/2010 was filed before this Court. This Court directed the respondents to consider the claim of the persons working on temporary basis, for regularisation.

¶45

In terms of the said judgment, Circulars were issued to Branch Managers to obtain application from

¶46

WP(C) Nos.25913 & 28832 of 2011

¶47

: 5 :

¶48

temporary/daily wage members. The petitioners submitted applications. However, the respondents proceeded to make selection without considering the petitioners.

¶49

The petitioners and similarly situated others approached this Court and interim orders were passed by this Court directing the Bank to interview the petitioners as well. Subsequently, this Court directed to publish the select list. To the surprise and predicament of the petitioners, their names were not included in the select list. These writ petitions were filed under such circumstances.

¶50

The petitioners would contend that the respondents have rejected the representations of the petitioners stating that there is no post of Temporary Messenger and denying the fact that the Bank had appointed the petitioners. The petitioners have been doing the work of bundling and stitching of credit slips also in the Bank.

¶51

The respondents have a legal duty to consider the petitioners for regular appointment in the Bank. The action of the Bank in dispensing with the service of the petitioners is

¶52

WP(C) Nos.25913 & 28832 of 2011

¶53

: 6 :

¶54

unjust and illegal. The respondents cannot go back from the assurance given by the management. The petitioners belong to financially poor families and have been rendered age over. The respondents are therefore compellable to include the names of the petitioners also in the select list of Temporary Messengers/Office Attendants (multi purpose), contended the petitioners.

¶55

The respondents defended the writ petitions filing counter affidavits. The respondents stated that the petitioners were engaged for carrying out sweeping work. The duration of sweeping work is less than one hour. There was no post of Temporary Messenger in the Bank and the petitioners were not appointed against any post. When services of regular Messengers were not available in Branches, the Branch Managers might have engaged persons purely on daily wage basis. It is only an arrangement made at the Branch level and the does not amount to appointment to the services of the Bank.

¶56

WP(C) Nos.25913 & 28832 of 2011

¶57

: 7 :

¶58

The respondents stated that the names of the petitioners were not included in the merit list since they were not found suitable for selection by the Selection Committee. The petitioners have not challenged the select list. The petitioners are not entitled to any preference for appointment to Group C posts in the Bank by virtue of their engagement by respective Branch Manages.

¶59

A perusal of the pleadings in the writ petitions would show that there is absence of any material in proof of the appointment of the petitioners. The argument of the petitioners is that there was discussion between the management and Unions and the management had agreed to consider the claims of the persons like the petitioners for regular appointment. A perusal of the writ petition would show that there is no evidence whatsoever to show that the management has given any offer or assurance in this regard to the petitioners or their Union. Ext.P1 document produced by the petitioners cannot be treated as one giving any assurance or commitment by the Bank authorities.

¶60

WP(C) Nos.25913 & 28832 of 2011

¶61

: 8 :

¶62

It is discernible from the pleadings that the

¶63

petitioners might have been engaged by Branch Managers for sweeping work. They might have also engaged for other work in the Bank in the absence of regular workers by the Branch Managers, purely at a local level. Such engagement cannot be treated as temporary appointment to the Bank. The petitioners cannot stake any claim for regular appointment or continued appointment on that basis.

¶64

In the circumstances, this Court finds no merits to interfere in the selection process resorted to by the respondents and to direct the respondents to include the name of the petitioners also in the select list. The writ petitions lack merit and are hence dismissed.

¶65

Sd/- N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

¶66

aks/08.03.2021

¶67

WP(C) Nos.25913 & 28832 of 2011

¶68

: 9 :

¶69

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25913/2011

¶70

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶71

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE DATED 2.4.2009 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED IN FAVOUR TO SRI. SHAJI KUMAR, A SIMILARLY PLACE PERSON TO THAT OF THE PETITIONERS, BY THE BANK DATED 20/10/2010 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPIES OF THE INTERIM ORDERS ISSUED IN W.P.(C) NO.33487 OF 2010 EXHIBIT P3 (A) TRUE COPIES OF THE INTERIM ORDERS ISSUED IN W.P.(C) NO.36619 OF 2010 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPIES OF THE INTERIM ORDER ISSUED IN W.P.(C) NOS. 33487 OF 2010 EXHIBIT P4 (A) TRUE COPIES OF THE INTERIM ORDERS ISSUED IN W.P.(C) NO.36619 OF 2010 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SELECT LIST PUBLISHED BY THE BANK EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 29.8.2011 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 29/8/2011 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CREDIT SLIP EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE MANAGER TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BANK DATED 26.8.2011

¶72

WP(C) Nos.25913 & 28832 of 2011

¶73

: 10 :

¶74

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE CREDIT/DEBIT SLIPS EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE CHECK ISSUED BY THE STATE BANK OF TRANVANCORE

¶75

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶76

EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION NO.1663(E) DATED 13.7.2010 EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LIST.

¶77

WP(C) Nos.25913 & 28832 of 2011

¶78

: 11 :

¶79

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28832/2011

¶80

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶81

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE DATED 02.04.2009.

¶82

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P. (C) NO.34526 OF 2010.

¶83

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SELECT LIST PUBLISHED BY THE BANK.

¶84

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 29.09.2011 IN W.P.(C) 34526/2010.

¶85

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 01.09.2011.

¶86

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CREDIT SLIP.

¶87

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 29.09.2011 IN W.P.(C) 25913/2011.

¶88

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶89

EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION NO.1663(E) DATED 13.07.2010.

¶90

EXHIBIT R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE CANDIDATE APPOINTMENT LIST.

¶91

Charle Thomas v. North Malabar Gramin Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charle Thomas v. North Malabar Gramin Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samuel Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Kumar Vs the District Collector

K.P.Haridas Vs the Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha

Deepa George Vs Suresh Kumar

Parthas Textiles Vs the Reserve Bank of India

Rajani K. P. Vs North Malabar Gramin Bank