ROLI NIGAM Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Ms. Dharmishta Raval, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided finally.

(2.) THE challenge in this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is to the order dated 26.08.2013, passed by the respondent -State Bank of India, informing the petitioner that as she has secured less than 50% marks in the re -test for confirmation, as a Probationary Officer, her services cannot be confirmed and stand terminated.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that from 12 -2 -2013 to 12 -8 -2013 (six months), the petitioner was on sanctioned maternity leave and, therefore, could not attend to her work. The re -test took place on 14 -7 -2013. According to the petitioner, that she was not keeping well during her maternity leave and was advised complete bed rest. It is the case of the petitioner that the Bank could have rescheduled the examination, as there is a provision for doing so in the Rules, but did not do so. The petitioner was "forced and coerced" into appearing for the re -test on 14.07.2013, though she was in no position to do so. According to the petitioner, she was denied reasonable opportunity to appear in the re -test. The petitioner has produced medical certificates dated 15.07.2013 and 20.09.2013, annexed as Annexures -E and F to the petition. The petitioner appeared for the confirmation re -test on 14.07.2013. Thereafter, vide the impugned communication dated 26.08.2013, of the respondent -Bank, the petitioner was informed that as she had scored 96.5 marks out of 200, which was less than 50% marks, the minimum qualifying marks required to pass the test, her services had been terminated. The petitioner was informed that one month's emoluments would be paid to her in lieu of one months' notice. The petitioner made a representation dated 31.08.2013, requesting for one more opportunity to appear in the examination. The request was rejected on 6th September, 2013. Aggrieved by the termination of her services by the respondent -Bank, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.