Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 1726
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
P.B. BAJANTHRI, J.
Indresh Pratap Singh and others - Petitioners
Vs.
State Bank of India and others - Respondents
CWP No. 9646, 13409, 16429 of 2014 (O&M), CWP No. 14206 of 2013 (O&M)
Decided On : 06-09-2016
For the Petitioners:Mr. Raman Mohinder, Mr. R.S. Tacoria, Mr. Sumeet Sheokand, Mr. K.K. Tiwari, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. H.N. Mehtani, Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Mr. Bhuwan Vats, Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Mr. Khush Karan, Advocate
The main legal point established is that contract appointees have no automatic right to seek permanent absorption without open advertisement and regular recruitment, as per the rules of recruitment and constitutional provisions.
Headnote:
Contract Appointees - Absorption Dispute - State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959, Section 50
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, contract appointees to the post of Officers Marketing & Recovery (Rural), sought regularization and absorption in the State Bank of Patiala (SBOP) based on a policy decision of the State Bank of India (SBI) dated 20.7.2010. The SBOP declined to absorb their services, citing administrative difficulties and the nature of their contract appointments.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' appointment was on a contractual basis with no right to permanent absorption, and that the SBI's policy for absorption did not meet constitutional provisions. The court also emphasized the need for open advertisement and regular recruitment for permanent positions, as per the rules of recruitment and constitutional provisions.
Issues: The main issues were the petitioners' right to seek permanent absorption, the binding nature of SBI's policy on SBOP, and the compliance with constitutional provisions and rules of recruitment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners had no right to seek permanent absorption without the post being advertised on a permanent basis, and that direct absorption of contract appointees would violate rules of recruitment and constitutional provisions. It emphasized the need for open advertisement and regular recruitment for permanent positions.
Final Decision: The court rejected the petitioners' plea for permanent absorption and declined to interfere with the orders of the SBI and SBOP regarding the absorption dispute.
P.B. BAJANTHRI, J.
These bunch of petitions are being disposed of by common order since issue relating to absorption of the petitioners is involved. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from CWP No.9646 of 2014. The petitioners have questioned the order dated 1.1.2013 passed by the State Bank of Patiala (for short hereinafter to be referred as “SBOP”) by which SBOP has taken a policy decision not to absorb services of contract appointees to the post of Officers Marketing & Recovery (Rural) like petitioners in the present case. Further they are seeking regularization of their service with reference to the policy decision of the State Bank of India (for short hereinafter to be referred as “SBI”) dated 20.7.2010 and to absorb/regularize services of the petitioners in the cadre of JMGS-1 on the post of Rural Marketing and Recovery Officers from 2.8.2010 on par with the similarly situated persons whose services were absorbed in SBI.
2. SBI formulated a policy for creation of a separate agribusiness unit to drive agri-business across the bank on 27.7.2004. In this regard Rules were framed exercising powers under Rule 5.1, 2 (2) of the Management Trainees/Executives Service and Conduct Rules of SBI on 9.6.2004.
3. Amongst others, petitioners were selected by the SBI on contract basis for the post of OMRs (Rural) on 19.7.2005 for a period of two years and petitioners name was forwarded to work in SBOP. Selection and appointment on contract basis was after due advertisement in the year 2006 and it was extended from time to time, viz., on 18.12.2007 and 11.8.2010.
4. SBI framed a policy on 20.7.2010 vide Annexure P-20, for the purpose of absorption of Officers – Marketing and Recovery (Rural), Technical Officers (Farm Sector), Micro Finance Marketing Officers, Customer Relationship Executives (PB) and Customer Relationship Executives (ME) in JMGS-1 as Specialist Officers. For the purpose of absorption, certain conditions were imposed. It is learnt that the State Bank of Indore adopted policy of absorption issued by SBI. Thus some of the contract appointees in the both SBI and State Bank of Indore, persons who were appointed on contract basis and who fulfills the conditions stipulated in the absorption policy dated 20.7.2010, there services have been regularized/absorbed. Similarly, the petitioners who were working in SBOP approached SBOP and SBI, to consider their names for absorption on par with the contract appointees who were working in SBI and State Bank of Indore, and whose services were absorbed in respective Banks. Since the initial recruitment on contract basis to the post of OMRs was by the SBI. The grievance of the petitioners was turned down by the SBI and SBOP on the score that it is a policy decision of the SBI. It is left to the SBOP. Whereas the SBOP took the policy decision not to absorb the contract appointees stating that if the absorption of contract appointees is done, it would affect administration of the SBOP. Thus, the petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of the SBI and SBOP, in not considering their grievance relating to absorption of the contract appointees against the post of JMGS-I
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they were initially appointed through the SBI by a common process in Associate banks of SBI and SBI has framed policy relating to absorption of contract appointees. Same has not been implemented, in so far as such officers who were appointed in SBOP have been discriminated. The SBI is not directing the SBOP to implement the policy of SBI dated 20.7.2010 (Annexure P-20), for the purpose of absorption of the petitioners' services. At the same time SBOP has taken a decision not to absorb the services of the contract appointees who were working in SBOP. Since SBOP is one of the associate banks of SBI, policy of the SBI is binding on the SBOP. Therefore, refusal to absorb the contract appointees like petitioners, is highly arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal.
