CHETAN SURYAKANT KATKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners assail action of the respondent-bank in outsourcing housekeeping activities thereby marring their hopes of securing employment as Part time Sub-Staff. They seek appointment as Part time Sub-Staff consequent to their selection for that post.

(2.) Facts of the case, shorn of unnecessary details, are that Petitioners' names were requisitioned from employment exchange by Respondent-Bank of Maharashtra for appointment as Part Time Substaff (PTS). After undergoing a process of selection, they were engaged by as temporary PTS to perform duties of cleaning, sweeping and house-keeping as well as to assist other bank employees in smooth functioning of branches/offices. Their initial engagements were made in various years from 2007 onwards. A Memorandum of Settlement dtd. 5/4/2017 was reached between the Bank and Union, under which the bank agreed to recruit 450 PTS on 1/3rd Scale wages at its branches/offices by undertaking "Part Time Substaff Recruitment Process 2017". In pursuance of the said Memorandum of Settlement, letter dtd. 24/1/2017 was issued to all the offices/branches of the bank for carrying out "Part Time Substaff Recruitment Process 2017". Petitioners applied in pursuance of the said process and were subjected to psychometric test held on 9/9/2018. The results were declared on 1/1/2019 in which they were declared successful. Verification letter dtd. 7/2/2019 was issued calling upon them to submit documents for verification for issuance of appointment orders. However, despite submitting requisite documents, no further progress was made by the respondent-bank. Instead, respondent-bank suddenly issued letter dtd. 6/4/2021 conveying the decision to outsource the house-keeping services. By further letter dtd. 4/12/2021, the decision to outsource house-keeping services was reiterated. Accordingly, a Request for Proposal is floated to appoint an agency for outsourcing.

(3.) Appearing for Petitioners, Dr Chandrachud the learned counsel would contend that having undertaken recruitment process in pursuance of the Memorandum of Settlement, the respondent-bank cannot abandon the same and outsource work to contractors thereby marring the rights created in favour of the selectees. He would submit that 450 vacancies/posts of PTS were sanctioned in view of settlement. That though the principle of the employer having right to keep a post vacant cannot be disputed, at the same time sanctioned vacancies cannot be kept vacant without cogent reasons. Dr. Chandrachud would take us to the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent-bank in order to demonstrate that the reasons for not filling up posts are not cogent. He would dispute the theory of abolition of the posts set up by the Bank contending that it has not placed on record any document to show that the posts are indeed abolished.