SADANANDA CHAKRABORTY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GRIEVANCES of the writ petitioner, as ventilated in the present application, relates to alleged illegal/arbitrary action on the part of the respondent-authorities in not appointing him in the post of Watch and Ward Staff.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the present case may briefly be stated as follows: -The petitioner was born on 16th July, 1964. He joined the Indian Army in 1982 and retired from the same in 1999. He got his name enrolled before the zilla Sainik Board, Burdwan. On 8th September, 2000, the respondent/bank approached the Zilla Sainik Board to sponsor the names of eligible candidates for recruitment in the post of Watch and Ward Staff. The Board sponsored the names of eligible candidates on 29th of September, 2000. It was on 8th september, 2004 that the Finance Ministry laid down guidelines regarding eligibility criteria for recruitment in such post. On 13th December, 2004 the petitioner was appointed as temporary Lathi Guard in the respondent/bank. On 16th September, 2005 the respondent/bank again requested the Zilla Sainik board to sponsor the names of ex-servicemen for filling up the vacant posts. The panel was prepared on the basis of interview held on 23rd May, 2006. On 30th november, 2006 the Bank authority informed the Sainik Board about the absorption of 17 candidates. The petitioner and another candidate were left out. Respondents No. 9 and 10 being age-barred candidates, they should not have been appointed and in that event, the petitioner could come within the first 17 candidates. In response to this, the respondent/bank filed an affidavit-in-opposition, inter alia, denying all the material allegations made by the writ petitioner. It was specifically claimed that the appointment of respondent Nos. 9 and 10 is legal, valid and not liable to be questioned before any court of law. Respondent-authority denied that the petitioner was discriminated against. It was alleged that the termination of the service of the petitioner was also legal and valid. It was claimed that the Security Guard and Watch and Ward Staff belong to the subordinate cadre. They are guided by the Rules and Regulations and Circulars applicable to them. For the purpose of recruitment of Security Guards and watch and Ward Staff, applications are entertained only from Ex-servicemen who have been honorably discharged from armed services. The concerned recruitment Rules of the respondent/bank provided for relaxation in upper age limit for the purpose of recruitment of Ex-servicemen. The concerned Rules of the respondent No. 4 also provide for relaxation of age in respect of temporary employees being considered for permanent absorption such as relaxation equivalent to the temporary service already rendered. If a temporary employee was within the prescribed age at the time of initial entry and is being considered for permanent absorption, he will be eligible for relaxation of age. The requirement and/or vacancy of the Security Guards and Watch and Ward Staff of the respondent No. 4 depends upon the cash retention capacity of the concerned branch Office and various other criteria which may change as per BPR initiative of the respondent No. 4. The temporary engagement does not create any right to be employed and it is terminable as and when the requirement is over. In november, 2000 following the interview held on 10th, 13th, and 14th November, 2000, the respondent No. 4 prepared a panel 57 candidates including the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 for recruitment of Security Guards and Watch and Ward Staff for Burdwan Region, Asansol and its Zonal Office at burdwan. The said empanelled candidates were offered temporary engagement in the bank service. In this process, out of the aforesaid 57 number of empanelled candidates, only 37 candidates were offered permanent appointment upto 19th august, 2004 leaving 20 number of empanelled candidates including the petitioner, respondent Nos. 9 and 10. On 30th October, 2002 the controlling office of respondent No. 4 asked the Zonal Office to follow the guidelines given by the hon"ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Lal vs. State of J and K and Gujarat state Deputy Executive Engineer's Association vs. State of Gujarat while recruiting in the posts of Sweepers/watchmen/guard (Staff Subordinate ).

(3.) FOLLOWING the interview held on 23rd May, a panel was prepared in november, 2006 containing the names of 19 persons wherein the names respondent Nos. 9 and 10 as well as that of the petitioner appeared as against serial Nos. 13, 14 and 19 respectively on the basis of the marks obtained in physical test and interview. Out of the said 19 persons, 17 candidates were given appointment in accordance with rank in the said panel and in accordance with the need of the respondent in phased manner. The petitioner was offered engagement on temporary basis on 29. 11. 2006. He was posted at Khoshbagan branch of the respondent No. 4. After 31st March, 2007, the cash retention value of the said branch was modified and it was brought within the Burdwan Branch. Thereby, the scope of engagement of the petitioner got extinguished and his temporary engagement was terminated. There were only 17 permanent posts and the same were filled from the panel. The petitioner's name however, continues to remain in the panel which is valid for one year (November, 2007) and as such, the present writ application is premature. The respondent/bank categorically denied that there had been any illegality committed by the respondent/authority in selecting respondent Nos. 9 and 10.