Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
G.Thirukalyanamalar, W/o shri.V.S.Vishwanath – Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India Rep. By its General Manager – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the petitioner’s appointment and termination. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on behalf of both parties regarding employment eligibility. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's observations on jurisdiction and rights of refugees. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 18 , 21) |
| 4. legal consequences of citizenship status and discrimination under article 14. (Para 11 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 20 , 30 , 31) |
| 5. final judgment quashing the termination order. (Para 32 , 33) |
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 05.04.200
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.
While non-citizens are excluded from constitutional rights reserved exclusively for citizens, they retain the locus standi to invoke the court's writ jurisdiction to challenge arbitrary or discrimina....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the fulfillment of statutory requirements for Indian citizenship by birth and the consideration of public interest in issuing passports to non-citi....
In the absence of confirmation of service and pendency of departmental process to verify caste certificate, protection against ouster as per Kavita Solunke and Shalini judgments is not applicable.
Point of Law : High Court while exercising powers under Article 226 has power to do substantial justice.
Point of law: it is always permissible for the authority not to perpetuate illegality once having been noticed and here in the instant case, from the initial stage itself, before allowing the petitio....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
