M. RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. CHIEF MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is filed by first among the two writ petitioners. He came to this Court challenging his exclusion in Ext. P7 final rank list, published for Kannur District regarding recruitment of watch and ward staff in permanent vacancy in the State Bank of India. The fundamental challenge was that all the materials showed that there were 21 vacancies. In paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit filed by the State Bank of India before the learned single Judge, it was specifically asserted that there were only four vacancies of security guards lying vacant in Low Risk Branches of the Bank. State Bank of India had also mentioned the branches where those vacancies were available. They came to this view on the basis of the fact that the Reserve Bank of India was insisting and therefore, the corporate centre of SBI had excluded 17 vacancies of security guards in the currency chest branches which, in terms of the directions of the Reserve Bank of India, were to be guarded round the clock by State Armed Police and in case of non -availability of the State Armed Police, an interim arrangement by providing Ex -Servicemen through the direct requirement or resettlement could also be considered against those vacancies. It was in that scenario that the SBI concluded that only four persons need be recruited as evidenced by Ext. P7. Therefore, there is no arbitrary exclusion of available vacancies from the selection. We say this because, the learned single Judge has approved the SBI's stand that selections are made with the currency of a select list being for one year in terms of the SBI Rules and Regulations. With this, we also see that with the passage of time, issues relating to engagement of Ex -Servicemen and other matters are gaining the attention of the Central Government in view of matters pending at that end through representations and after this Court had repelled the challenge to the selection made for the subsequent years. For support, see judgment in W.P.(C). No. 22055 of 2013 and W.A. No. 64 of 2014.

(2.) FOR the aforesaid reasons, we do not find our way to interfere with the judgment issued by the learned single Judge, in so far as W.P.(C). No. 2105 of 2011 is concerned. This writ appeal, hence, fails.