ABHIMANYU MANDAL Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS all these writ applications involve identical disputes they were heard together, and this judgment shall govern each one of them.

(2.) FACTUAL position is almost undisputed and essentially is as follows: Petitioner in each case has prayed for a direction to the State Bank of India (in short, the 'bank/s. B. I') and its functionaries to give him appointment by filling up 140 sanctioned posts of messengers. Their claim is based on a list prepared earlier, which has been described as 1990 panel list. In November, 1990 an interview was held for selecting candidates for preparation of a panel from the persons who had rendered temporary services as messengers under the Bank in order to consider their cases for regular appointment, as and when posts were sanctioned. In the said interview 189 candidates were found suitable and a panel list was prepared. Number of persons were working under different branches of the Bank purely on temporary basis appointed for specific periods. Question of discontinuance of temporary appointment in subordinate categories and giving a chance to existing temporary employees in subordinate cadre for permanent absorption in the bank service against the existing vacancies or those likely to arise in future was considered by the Management of the Bank. Discussions were held on various occasions with the Employees' Federation. After several rounds of discussions and examination of various issues, a Bipartite Agreement was signed on November 17, 1987 indicating the policy to be followed with regard to temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre in future, and providing a chance to the temporary employees for permanent absorption in the Bank's service against the existing as well as future vacancies. Three categories of employees were grouped. Category 'a' was specified to be those who have completed 240 days temporary service in any continuous block of 12 calendar months or less after July 1, 1975 within July 31, 1988. Category 'b' was in respect of persons who have completed 270 days aggregate temporary service in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after July 1, 1975 within July 31, 1988. Category 'c' was in respect of persons who have completed a minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after July 1, 1975 within July 31, 1988 or a minimum of 70 days aggregate temporary service in any continuous block of 36 calendar months during that period. Different specifications were made in respect of temporary employees who had worked in the Bank on regular scale wages (part-time or full-time) between July 1, 1975 to July 31, 1988, and put in during the aforesaid stipulated period. Such persons who were found eligible were called to face the interview, and upon being found suitable were enlisted in the panel. Petitioners were eligible to appear in the interview under Category 'c'. Petitioners who claim to have been empanelled have prayed for appointment on the basis of 1990 panel. They make a grievance that making a departure from the panel, eligibility for consideration was extended to daily wagers, who were not in the picture when 1990 panel was prepared.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, another panel was prepared in the year 1993 for another set of temporary employees, who were junior to the petitioners. Opposite parties have refuted this stand taking the plea that the circular issued under the Bipartite Agreement the Staff Federation only provided for considering the temporary employees who have worked in the Bank on regular wage basis between July 1, 1975 to July 31, 1988. The said Agreement was revised by another settlement dated July 16, 1988 entered into between the bank's management and the Staff Federation "modifying the previous settlement dated November 17, 1987. A fresh circular dated April 19, 1991 was issued basing upon subsequent settlement wherein it was provided that since in pursuance of the previous settlement, panels of temporary employees have already been prepared in most of the circles, looking to the enormity of the problem and in view of the currency period of panels now being extended, eligible temporary employees who have not been empanelled and who could not appear in the interview for reasons beyond their control and have been pursuing the cases thereafter will be given another chance to appear in the interview on the basis of which supplementary panels will be prepared. As as result of this settlement, the existing panel was enlarged by way of supplementary panel. It was clearly stipulated that daily wagers would also be given opportunity to face the interview along with the scale wage earners who for some reasons could not appear in the previous interview. On the basis of said Bipartite Settlement Circular, fresh opportunity was given to both temporary employees of scale wagers, who were left out earlier, and daily wagers, who were for the first time given an opportunity to face the interview. That necessitated preparation of supplementary panel. It is stated that by no stretch of imagination this supplementary panel can be taken to be a separate panel from one prepared in 1990, and cannot be stated to be a 1993 panel as alleged by the petitioners. Rather the supplementary panel is an extension of the panel prepared in 1990. The allegation of the petitioners that temporary employees who were juniors to them are being given employment was denied.