The court ruled that the principle of equality under Article 14 applies to non-citizens as well; thus, arbitrary termination based on citizenship status violated constitutional rights.

ORDER :

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.

The petitioner, a registered Tamil Sri Lankan refugee, is before this Court challenging the order dated 28.06.2013 passed by the first respondent, by which her services in the respondent Bank were terminated.

2. The facts of the case:

2.1. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 01.10.2007 and the notification dated 17.12.2007 issued by the respondent Bank, applications were invited for appointment to the post of Officer-Marketing and Recovery (Rural). The petitioner, claiming that she possessed the requisite qualifications and eligibility, submitted her application for the said post. Upon consideration, the petitioner was found suitable and an order of appointment was issued in her favour on 05.04.2008.

2.2. The Respondent contends that petitioner was appointed as Officer-Marketing and Recovery on a contractual basis for a period of two years from 31.03.2008 to 30.03.2010. During the subsistence of her contractual employment, the State Bank of India Contract Officers’ Welfare Association filed a writ petition in W.P.No.7431 of 2010 seeking absorption of the contract employees as permanent employees. The petitioner claims to be a member of the said Association. When the said writ petition was pending, the State Bank of India issued an advertisement dated 30.01.2010 for recruitment of Probationary Officers (Rural Business) from the open market and for consequential appointment of existing officers – Marketing & Recovery (Rural) including the petitioner as permanent officers.

2.3. Subsequently, the Executive Committee of the Central Board of State Bank of India, in its meeting held on 14.07.2010, approved a policy for permanent absorption of officers – Marketing & Recovery (Rural), who were in service of the Bank as on that date subject to the condition that they had achieved a minimum of 60% of the prescribed targets during the year 2009 – 2010. Recording the said subsequent development, the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of on 25.10.2010 granting liberty to the members of the SBI Contract Officers Welfare Association to agitate their individual cases for non-absorption, if the need arises.

2.4. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner’s name was included in the final list of selected candidates. However, during scrutiny of the documents and certificates submitted by the petitioner, the respondent Bank noticed that the petitioner is a Sri Lankan National. It was found that she did not fulfill the primary eligibility requirement under the advertisement dated 01.10.2007, which mandated Indian Citizenship for appointment to the post of Officer – Marketing and Recovery (Rural). Consequently, the respondent Bank took a decision to terminate the petitioner from service and the same was effected by the impugned order dated 28.06.2013. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Submissions on behalf of the petitioner:

3.1. Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that owing to ethnic conflict prevailing in Sri Lanka at the relevant point of time, the petitioner along with her parents fled to the State of Tamil Nadu in the year 1990. It was contended that the petitioner is of Indian Origin by birth.

3.2. It was therefore contended that, for all the practical purposes, the petitioner has been extended rights and benefits akin to those enjoyed by Indian Citizens. Merely on the ground that the petitioner is a Sri Lankan Tamil refugee, she cannot be deprived of her valuable right to employ