PRAKASHINI Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is preferred under Article 14, 16 and 226 of Constitution of India by the petitioner who applied for the post of Probationary Officer in the set up of respondent No.1-Bank. She succeeded in clearing two written examinations as well as group discussion and personal interview. Resultantly, she was appointed on 15th May, 2009 and was placed on probation/training for a period of two years.

(2.) IT is averred in the petition that during the course of probation, petitioner needed to undergo training at various places and under various authorities. She has not been communicated any adverse remarks and she succeeded in completing the said training. Subsequent examination as required was also cleared by her. However, she received communication from respondent No.2 on 13th May, 2011 and her probation was extended for the period of three months under Rule 16(2) of "State Bank of India Officers Service Rules" (SBIOSR). On inquiry, of her averred shortcomings, nothing adverse was communicated, not even during the extended period. The services of one of her collegues is terminated in light of provisions of Rule 16(3) of SBIOSR. On 12th May, 2011. Therefore, she apprehend that her services also may be terminated without any reason and hence, approached this Court with a request to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

(3.) AFFIDAVIT in reply has been filed on behalf of respondent -State Bank of India interalia urging that the petition has become infructous as order of discharge has already been passed. It is further urged that respondent is not a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of Constitution of India. Bank carrying on its activities under the provisions of State Bank of India Act and is working under the supervision of Reserve Bank of India. All the terms and conditions of the officers working with the respondent are governed by this Rules. Therefore, in the event of any grievance petitioner can take recourse to proceedings before the Civil Court. It is further contended that on 28th April, 2009 in a letter appointing petitioner as Probationary Officer, her period of probation was of two years from the date of appointment and subject to satisfactory performance in the evaluation of test to be conducted by the respondent, confirmation was to follow. According to the respondent Rule 16(2) authorizes respondent to extend the probation period of one year if the service of any officer was not satisfactory or officer has not passed the test. However, no reason is required for such extension.. Petitioner herein made her representation on 14th May, 2011 and without waiting for the respondent to reply to the said representation, she rushed to the Court on 16th May, 2011 by preferring the present petition. It is further contended that invoking the provisions of Rule 16(3) of SBIOSR her services has been terminated. It is further contended that because of non-satisfactory performance of the petitioner in the test conducted by the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection. Order of discharge has been passed on having been satisfied that she has not found fit to be continued in the service.