SANJAY GULATI Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is seeking direction against the respondent for regularisation of his service as Assistant Engineer (Civil) with all benefitsof seniority. Provident Fund, Employees' Family Pension, fixation of pay etc. interms of Circular letter dated 14.3.1995 with further direction to respondent-Bankto pay to him salary at par with the regularly deployed Assistant Engineer (Civil)and restraining it from terminating his service.

(2.) The petitioner holds a degree in B.E. (Civil) with 63.4% marks and claimsthat earlier he had joined service with M/s. Allied Architects in July, 1989 where heworked till September, 1993 and was drawing a salary of Rs. 4,200.00 p.m. On2.6.1991 respondent-Bank through advertisement Annexure P-1 invited applications for appointment of Site Engineers in the grade of Rs. 1750-2250 with consolidated monthly salary. It is the petitioner's case that 259 applications were received.The petitioner was one of the candidates, who also received call letter for interviewand was duly selected and consequently was given appointment through letterAnnexure P-3 dated 7.9.1993 for a period of six months. On 16.9.1993 he joined theduties and was posted at Agra. Service agreement was also executed on 16.9.1993.Keeping in view the performance and in the interview he was given an initialconsolidated salary of Rs. 2,250.00 p.m., at the maximum of the grade. Though hewas getting salary of Rs. 4,200.00p.m. from his earlier employer, the petitioner statesthat he accepted the appointment at a lower salary because of bright prospects andfuture and security of a regular appointment, which was assured to him at the timeof interview. He was transferred from Agra to Delhi and was not paid T.A., whichis given to other regular employees. On 24.8.1994 respondent-Bank issued anadvertisement for various posts, including 17 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) inthe pay scale of Rs. 2100-4020. The petitioner represented for regularisation of hisservice as Assistant Engineer (Civil). Instead of regularisation he was advised to -submit an application for the post and was assured of selection. The petitioneraccordingly submitted his application. Despite various assurances held out to himneither his service was regularised, nor he was called for interview. No call letterwas received by him. As such he was left with no other option except to approachthis Court with the aforementioned reliefs. It is claimed by him that he wasappointed on the basis of a proper selection by a Selection Board after dueconsideration. Having undergone selection process earlier he could not be made toappear in interview again for the purpose of regularisation. Having workedcontinuously with the respondent-Bank, he was entitled for being regularised forwhich assurances were also held out to him.

(3.) The petitioner's claim is resisted by the respondent. In reply filed on theaffidavit of K. Sampath, Assistant General Manager (Premises), State Bank of India,Local Head Office, New Delhi it is specifically denied that any assurance, as alleged,was ever held out to the petitioner. It is stated that in the advertisement AnnexureP-l dated 2.6.1991, inviting applications for Site Engineers it was clearly stated thatthe post was purely on temporary basis. The petitioner was paid only consolidatedsalary and was initially engaged only for a period of six months or till completionof the project, whichever was earlier. The petitioner accepted his status as Temporary Site Engineer, for which purpose he also executed an agreement. It is also statedthat for recruitment of Assistant Engineer (Civil) to be appointed in J.M.G.Scale I,which are permanent posts, an advertisement was issued. Recruitment was doneby the Central Recruitment Board, which is an independent body. Advertisementwas open to general public who were eligible, as per the eligibility criteria laid downin advertisement, Annexure P-8. There were 19 vacancies, out of which 5 were inGeneral Category. In all 1929 applications were received out of which 1317 werefrom General Category candidates. The petitioner was also one of the candidatesin the General Category, A Screening Committee was constituted for short-listingcandidates, to be called for interview. 51 candidates were short listed in the GeneralCategory for the purpose of interview. In view of the criteria adopted by theScreening Committee, name of the petitioner could not find place in the short-listedcandidates. Therefore, he was not called for interview. Respondents have statedthat since the petitioner was appointed, pursuant to the advertisement AnnexureP-l, purely on temporary basis fora particular project and was continued thereafteron the basis of the specific agreement, he has no right for being regularised.We have heard Counsel for the parties. Considering the submissions made atthe bar we do not find that any ground has been made out for issuing any directionas prayed for against the respondent.