H S RAJASHEKARA Vs. STATE BANK OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner herein was inducted into the service of the State Bank of Mysore (hereinafter referred to as, the Bank) as a temporary Sub-Staff in 1985. He was intermittently taken into employment based on the need for such staff. During the year 1994-95, he claims to have rendered more than 240 days of service in a calendar year. Based thereon, he claimed that he be included in the "protected category" of employees. Having satisfied the "protected category" criteria, the Petitioner applied for absorption as a permanent employee, by citing the example of one Devaraju, by addressing representations to the Bank. It is also the contention of the Petitioner, that the employees union of the Bank also addressed a communication dated 13.12.1997 to the management of the Bank requiring it to absorb the Petitioner as a permanent employee. Since the representations made by the Petitioner, and recommendation made by the employees union of the Bank, did not result in any consideration at the hands of the Bank, the Petitioner approached the High Court of Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as, the High Court) by filing a Writ Petition being W.P. No. 45932 of 1999. The aforesaid Writ Petition came to be disposed of by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on 14.12.2004. In this behalf, it would be relevant to mention, that the High Court did not examine the merits of the controversy raised by the Petitioner. Rather than doing that, the High Court directed the Bank to take a decision on the representation made by the Petitioner by passing a written order. The Bank was also directed to communicate the same to the Petitioner.

(2.) The bank, while examining the claim raised by the Petitioner, noticed the contention of the Petitioner as under:

(3.) The Petitioner assailed the order dated 13.11.2007, passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court (while disposing of Writ Petition No. 22324 of 2005), by preferring Writ Appeal No. 24 of 2008. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the aforesaid Writ Appeal on 4.11.2008. While adjudicating upon the controversy, the Division Bench referred to the judgment rendered by this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1, so as to conclude, that the Petitioner was not entitled to regularization in terms of the parameters laid down by this Court.