GANESH SEN Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order Annexure, 7 dated Feb. 21, '91, passed by the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Jodhpur on the instructions of the Central Office of the bank terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of Class IV employee.

(2.) THE Employment Officer, Jodhpur, by his letter dated July 6, 1987, in pursuance to the letter dated June 29, 1987, sent by the Regional Manager, Union Bank of India, Bapu Nagar, Jodhpur, sent the list of the candidates to be considered for appointment on the post of subordinate staff in the bank. THE name of the petitioner was, also, included in that list. THE petitioner was called for interview by the respondents, on August 25, 1987. THE petitioner was interviewed by the respondents on August 25, 1987, and as he was found fit, he was, therefore, asked to appear before the Medical Officer, Jodhpur Hospital and Research Centre, Jodhpur, for medical examination. THE petitioner appeared before the Medical Officer and was got medically examined on August 30, 19s0 and was found medically fit. He was, thereafter, given appointment in the Jodhpur branch of the Union Bank of India and he joined the service with the respondent No. 3 w. e. f. August 31, 1990. According to the petitioner, after his selection, and joining the duties, on September 9, 1990, he was asked to submit the application and the petitioner, in pursuance to this letter dated September 12, '90. submitted the application in the prescribed form in general category on September 24, 1990. THE case of the petitioner further is that though his services were found satisfactory and the Branch Manager of the bank recommended his name for confirmation, but suddenly his services were terminated vide order dated February 21, '91, on the ground that he could not submit that Caste Certificate. It is against this order, terminating the services of the petitioner, that the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

(3.) NOW comes the question, whether the petitioner is entitled for any notice before passing the order Annexure 7, terminating the services of the petitioner? The ease of the respondents is that the appointment to the petitioner was given against the Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribe candidates' quota and he was asked to furnish the caste certificate, but the petitioner did not furnish the same and, therefore, the order, appointing the petitioner, was cancelled as his provisional appointment was void because he was not the member of the reserved class. This provisional appointment, given to the petitioner, does not confer any legal right in favour of the petitioner to continued in service. The petitioner's case, on the other hand, is that he was duly selected by the respondents in the general category and, therefore, before terminating his services, a notice was must.