JITU PRASAD Vs. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 22-2-2011, said to be issued by the respondents, by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated with immediate effect. It is alleged that the petitioner took part in selection for appointment on the post of Assistant Manager (Executive-Grade-A) and on selection an offer of appointment was issued to him. The petitioner reported on duty on 1-12-2010. The relevant documents were produced by him. However, after scrutiny of his documents, it was observed by the Bank that the petitioner belongs to ''Roniyar" (Baniya) caste from the State of Jharkhand. Finding that the said caste was not appearing in the Central list of Other Backward Class for the State of Jharkhand, as per the Notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, it was treated that the petitioner is not belonging to said OBC category and, therefore, could not have been appointed under the said category. The order of termination was, thus, issued. It is contended that in the State of Bihar, before re-organisation of the State, "Roniyar" (Baniya) was enlisted as a caste in the OBC category. The process of recruitment was started and at the time when the application was so submitted by the petitioner, the said caste was included in the list of OBC, However, because of the formation of the new State of Jharkhand, the area in which the petitioner was living falls within the State of Jharkhand, where the said caste was not included as OBC in the list so issued, but subsequently a modification was done and this particular caste was again included in the list of the State of Jharkhand, It is contended that under the provisions of the Bihar Re-organisation Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity), such benefits are protected under the circumstances and, as such, the petitioner would be one who belongs to the OBC category in particular State and would entitle to the benefit of appointment. It is contended that the cancellation of appointment of the petitioner on this count is not justified and, as such, the order impugned is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. A return has been filed by the respondents raising the preliminary objection with respect to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the respondent Bank is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and no writ petition would be maintainable against the said Bank. It is contended that the petitioner has no fundamental right to claim appointment or reinstatement in the services. There were conditions mentioned in the offer of appointment extended to the petitioner, by the Bank wherein it was specifically provided that in case it is found that the caste certificate produced by the petitioner was invalid or not acceptable, his services would be terminated. It is contended that in terms of the scrutiny when the fact was found that the caste to which the petitioner belongs is not included as OBC in the State of Jharkhand, rightly the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled. It is contended that no wrong is committed by the respondents and, as, such, the order impugned is just and proper.

(2.) A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner along with which articles of association of the Bank have been produced. It has been pointed out by referring certain classes of Article of Association that respondent is a Company registered under the Companies Act, but is discharging the banking functions as have been delegated by the Reserve Bank of India and as such, is discharging the public duties. Thus, it is contended that the Bank is a Company of the State function and is covered as an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Thus, it is contended that the writ petition is maintainable. As far as the applicability of the provisions of the Act, it is contended that the benefit is still available to the petitioner under the provisions of the said Act.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.