Point of law: Interview of appointment - Merely because appellant was called for interview, it will not confer any right on him to be selected and appointed

JUDGMENT :

T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 28.02.2018, passed in W.P.(MD) No.7651 of 2013, on the file of this Court.)

1. The appellant is the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.7651 of 2013, which was dismissed by order dated 28.02.2018.

2. The appellant filed the writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent – Bank to consider his case and appoint him in the post of Safai Karmachari-cum- Sub Staff and / or Sub Staff on a regular basis with effect from the date on which the other candidates were appointed and to pay all the consequential benefits.

3. The appellant's case is that he was employee of the respondent – Bank from 1997 till his services were orally terminated in February, 2013 and that he had been an employee for more than eight years with artificial break, which would clearly show that the post in which the appellant functioning is a permanent post, for which applications were invited and appointments were made.

4. The appellant would further state that the service rendered by him for eight years cannot be treated as a temporary service and the break, which was given, is artificial break and hence, the service should be treated as a continuous service and the appellant is deemed to be a permanent employee of the respondent – Bank. It is submitted that there are several persons, like the appellant, who were employed by the respondent – Bank and ultimately, the Management of the respondent – Bank and the All India Central Bank Employees Federation (Union) entered into a settlement dated 09.08.2012, wherein, it was agreed as a one time measure to appoint the employees, who were already worked in the Bank. The appellant would state that he having worked for more than eight years was fully qualified for being appointed as Safai Karmachari-cum-Sub Staff on full time basis along with the candidates, who applied from the open market.

5. It is further submitted by the appellant that the respondent – Bank invited applications from eligible candidates by paper publication dated 02.11.2012 and he applied for the said post and attended interview on 11.01.2013. Therefore, it is submitted that the appellant cannot be denied appointment on the ground of qualification or eligibility as he was fully qualified and eligible to be appointed to the said post. However, the appellant having not been selected, approached the Writ Court contending that his nonselection is arbitrary and unreasonable. Further, it was contended that the non-selection of the appellant has defeated the very object of the Settlement entered into between the Management of the respondent – Bank and the Union.

6. The respondent – Bank resisted the prayer sought for by the appellant by contending that for the Madurai Region of the respondent – Bank, 25 posts of Safai Karmachari and 21 posts of Sub Staff, totally 46 posts, were sanctioned. In terms of the Circular, dated 14.08.2012, issued by the Central Office of the respondent – Bank, the names of the candidates should be called for from the concerned District Employment Exchanges and by publishing an advertisement in dailies in regional languages having wide circulation. Further, as the one time measure, temporary / casual workers engaged by various Branches, within the guidelines of the Bank, were permitted to participate in the selection process along with fresh candidates. The selection was required to be done by conducting an interview. It is submitted that in terms of the direction issued by the Central Office, advertisement was issued calling for applications from the eligible candidates to fill up 46 posts (25 posts of Safai Karmachari + 21 posts of Sub Staff). The guidelines to be followed for selection was duly mentioned in the said advertisement. Further names were also called for from the Employment Exchanges and Ex-Servicemen Welfare Associations. In response to the advertisement, 3500 applications wer