C. GUNASEKARAN Vs. THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ appeal has been filed against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 27.3.1996 in W.P.No.6334 of 1986. whereunder the learned Judge rejected the writ petition filed seeking for the issue or a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to post the appellant as a clerk with effect from 26.12.1985 and award exemplary costs came to be dismissed. The facts which need our reference in this order for considering the question raised before us are beyond controversy. The appellant, a member of the Scheduled Caste Community, claims to have passed Pre -University Course Examination from Madurak -Kamaraj University and thereafter undergone Turner Course in I.T.I. Due to economic constraints he look up employment in Rane (Madras) Ltd.. during the year 1975 and while in such service he became an active member of the Rane (Madras) Ltd., Employees Union and claims to have taken part in various struggles of the workers for improving their conditions of Service. This, it is said, irked the Management and as a process of victimisation, he and about 23 persons were sent out of service on various charges. So far as the appellant is concerned, he was dismissed on 27.7.1982. on being found guilty of charges such as (a) indulging in acts subversive of efficiency and (c) refusal to accept service of notice when served by messenger or in the factory premises or by registered post. The appellant's claim for reference for adjudication of the non -employment appears to have been turned down and he has also challenged the same before the Court.

(2.) While matters stood thus, the appellant participated in the call for recruitment for clerical cadre of posts in the nationalized banks and he was provisionally selected and allotted for the respondent -bank, viz.. Central Bank of India for appointment as Clerk. Thereupon, the respondent issued a notice and called upon the appellant to produce the various certificates and also produce proper relieving certificate from his employer, if already employed, at the time of joining on appointment.. The appellant, as a consequence, by his letter dated 26.12.1986 to the respondent, explaining his difficulties and seeking for the order of appointment expeditiously. On the request made by the respondent, a further reference about a person known to him was also given and disappointed with the delay in being appointed caused the issuance of a notice dated 19.5.1986 through his counsel. This evoked response in the form of reply from the counsel for the respondent -bank, that having regard to his past history of dismissal by the previous employer, the respondent has decided not to appoint the appellant. It is at this stage that the appellant filed the writ petition for the relief noticed supra. The respondent filed a counter affidavit opposing the claim.

(3.) Before the learned single Judge. While relying upon the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in : 1985 (I) L.L.J. 103 (A. Manik Rao v/s. Director, Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory Hyderabad and others), wherein it was held that before cancelling a provisional appointment, the Government is bound follow the principles of natural justice and failure to do so is a serious vitiating factor the action of the respondent was attacked as illegal and of unwarranted. The learned Single Judge was unable to agree with the stand taken for the appellant on the ground that there is difference between a case of provisional appointment and provisional selection and the case of the appellant being merely one of the provisional selection subject to fulfilment of certain obligations, the same does not confer any right as such. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.