Back
2023 Supreme(Guj) 990
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MAUNA M. BHATT, J.
Kamleshkumar Babubhai Rabari – Petitioner
Versus
State Bank Of India – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 12605 Of 2023
Decided On : 01-08-2023
For the Petitioner: Mr. G.M. Joshi, assisted by Mr. Vyom H. Shah
For the Respondent: Mr. Kamal Trivedi with Ms. Dharmishta Raval with Mr. Ankeeta Rajput and Mr. Vaibhav Goshani.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14, 21 – Stage of recruitment process – Challenging procedure – Held, Therefore, it is difficult to accept contention of learned senior Advocate for petitioners, when there is no violation of fundamental right or breach of principles of natural justice or action is not per say illegal, arbitrary or discriminatory – Case does not fall in afore-stated requirements of law, because except challenging test being outside scope of rule, advertisement and appointment order, there is no other ground available – It cannot be also ignored that petitioners having voluntarily participated in test and having failed in test, as an afterthought have chosen to file this petition – Moreover, as pointed out by learned Senior Advocate for bank that proviso to Rule 16 which refers to test is this very test and no other language test as interpreted by petitioners have been conducted – Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. In view of the urgency mentioned by Mr. G.M.Joshi, learned senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vyom Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners and fairly not objected by Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Dharmishta Raval, learned advocate for the respondent – Bank, this petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal today.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Dharmishta Raval, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondent – Bank.
3. This petition is filed by Probationary Officers of respondent – Bank, challenging the procedure of test introduced by the Bank for assessment of performance of the petitioners before their confirmation. It is case of the petitioners that they had applied for job pursuant to the advertisement dated 9.12.2021, where no such provision or prescription of the test is provided. Similarly, in the appointment letter also there is no such mention of clearing the test before confirmation. In relevant rules such test is not provided for and it only refers to assessment during the probation period. It is case of the petitioners that they have participated in the procedure of test but have failed and, therefore, they are apprehending non-confirmation in the job though they have otherwise successfully completed the probation period as required under the advertisement, appointment order and the relevant rules. The probation period is to get over and no sooner thereafter the petitioners will be relieved/discontinued from the job.
4. Aggrieved by their non-confirmation upon non-clearing of the test, the petitioners have preferred this petition with the following prayers:
“6.(A) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the form of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of holding the examination for purpose of confirmation in service as arbitrary and illegal and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and further direct the respondent authorities not to terminate the services of the petitioners on completion of their probation period and be pleased to direct the respondent Bank to confirm the petitioners on the post of Circle Based Officers and be pleased to hold that non-passing of the examination cannot lead to termination of probation/services;
(B) During the admission, pendency and final disposal of this petition the Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to terminate the services of the petitioners and maintain status quo as to the service conditions of the petitioners;
(C) Be pleased to award the cost of this petition.
(D) Any other and/or further relief/s that may deem fit looking to the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted to the petitioner.”
5. Facts in brief as sated in the petition are as under:
5.1. An advertisement dated 9.12.2021 was published for recruitment to the post of Circle Based Officer pursuant to which the petitioners applied. The first stage of recruitment process was an online written examination which all the petitioners cleared and thereafter, they were called to appear in the second round which was an oral interview and they were declared successful in the same.
5.2. Subsequently, document verification and health checkup process were done and after having cleared the same, petitioners were served with their respective appointment orders on 19.7.2022. All the petitioners herein had joined the service w.e.f. 2.11.2022. There are two batches appointed for Circle Based Officers- Batch I- joined services in August, 2022 and Batch II joined the services in November, 2022. All the petitioners belong to Batch-II. It is case of the petitioners that after joining the services, they were informed about passing of test before confirmation, by respondent – Bank through an announcement dated 22.12.2022. For Batch-I appointees through announcement dated 22.12.2022, they were informed that
