SANTOSH SARKAR Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeals are filed by the Bank and the petitioners in the writ petition against the order of the learned Single Judge. The writ petition was filed for a direction to appoint the petitioners to the post of Safai Karmchari-cum-Sub-Staff on the basis of the selection conducted by the Bank. It was alleged that the selection process was done based on a settlement entered into between the management of the Bank and the association of employees, wherein temporary/casual workers employed in the subordinate cadre, including Safai Karmcharis who have put in a minimum of 45 days service during the continuous period of twelve months would be allowed to participate in the recruitment process. The prayer for appointment was declined on the reasoning that the Bank had not appointed the persons since there were no vacancies, against which the petitioners have filed the appeals.

(2.) The Bank, in their appeal is aggrieved with the portion of the judgment which directed the Bank to ensure that whenever a fresh recruitment process is initiated, the petitioners' case would be considered.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners Shri Prashant Sinha pointed out that the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur had allowed similar prayers made before it. It is pointed out that the petitioners were engaged as Safai Karmcharis on a temporary basis and their right arose under the Memorandum of Settlement entered into between the management and the unions. The petitioners herein are persons who were daily wage employees in the various Branches in the Region of Motihari. The selection within Motihari was carried out, but later the same was cancelled despite the petitioners being called for the interview. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the judgment referred to by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. Nos. 19254 of 2014 and 16666 of 2014, which was reversed in L.P.A. Nos.460 of 2016 and 449 of 2016, was not of similarly placed persons. Therein, the selection was from the open market and the Bank had refused to carry out the appointments on similar ground of surplus staff being engaged. The petitioners therein had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which the present petitioners had sought for intervention. While declining the prayer for intervention, it was directed that the cases of the casual workers would be considered in accordance with law, unfettered by the decision in the S.L.P. In such circumstances, especially following the judgments of the High Court of Bombay and Gauhati, learned counsel prays for allowing the appeal after setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge.