VINEY KUMAR ASHTA Vs. NEW BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, petitioner who is a Clerk with the New Bank of India (in short, the Bank), is seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the bank to consider the name of the petitioner for the post of Advanced Ledger Posting Machine/Advanced Electronic Accounting Machine Operator (s) (in short ALPM/AEAM operator) on the basis of aptitude test held on 17.1.1988 and appoint the petitioner first as ALPM operator in preference to those who have qualified the aptitude test later on i.e. on 16.10.1988.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that the Bank installed ALPM and AEAM machines in branches of Sectors 17-B and 22-B, Chandigarh, respectively. For the said machines, there was a requirement of operators being appointed from amongst the members of non- subordinate staff working in branches/offices in Chandigarh. Accordingly, a settlement dated 28.11.1987 was arrived at between the management and All India New Bank of India Employees Federation. As per this settlement, it was agreed that the bank would select ALPM/AEAM operators from amongst the members of non-sub-ordinate staff working in branches/offices in Chandigarh. The eligibility condition for such operators was fixed as Matriculation with minimum service of two years as on 1.7.1987. Those who were to be assigned the duties of ALPM/AEAM operator, were to get a special allowance of Rs. 350/- per month. The selection of ALPM/AEAM operators was to be on the basis of aptitude test conducted by an outside Agency. The panel of selected employees was to be three times the number of vacancies of the said operators and valid for a period of two years from the date it was to be drawn, and further the offer as ALPM/AEAM operators was to be made on the basis of station-wise seniority (length of service plus weightage for educational qualifications, as applicable for redesignation/posting as special Assistant etc. as prescribed in settlement dated 17.2.1972 as modified from time to time). The petitioner along with many others, appeared in the aptitude test conducted on 17.1.1988. Five employees, including the petitioner, were declared successful. As only five persons qualified the aptitude test and as per settlement, the size of panel had to be three times the number of vacancies of ALPM operators, the Bank decided to hold another test on 16.10.1988 for selection of requisite number of employees so that the panel equivalent to three times the number of vacancies could be drawn. The employees who had already qualified the aptitude test were exempted from the test. The test was held on 16.10.1988 and out of 80 persons, five persons including respondents No. 3 to 5 qualified the test and were declared successful. Bank prepared the panel and the petitioner was placed below respondents No. 3 to 6 though he had cleared the test earlier to respondents No.3 to 6. The offer was made to the first five persons from the panel of employees to work as ALPM/AEAM operators. The order of the Bank is being impugned by the petitioner in the writ petition on the ground that since he had cleared the aptitude test earlier to respondents No. 3 to 6, his name ought to have been placed above respondents No. 3 to 6 and he ought to have been offered the work of ALPM/AEAM operator.

(3.) Bank has contested the claim of the petitioner by filing written statement, in which the Bank has stated that action has been taken pursuant to the settlement which the bank arrived at with the Union of the employees, and it confers no right on the petitioner.