Bank's policy to abolish posts and outsource housekeeping not challengeable by selection participants lacking employment rights.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioners are stated to be working as the part-time sub-staff of the 1^st respondent Bank. They state that the respondent Bank invited applications for appointment to the post of part-time sub-staff (permanent). The petitioners participated in response to the application invited as above by the respondent Bank and they were about to be selected. It is at that point of time, the petitioners contend that the respondent Bank decided to outsource the engagement of such staff on daily wage basis through a private agency, as evidenced by Ext.P9 circular. The captioned writ petition has been presented seeking to challenge Ext.P9 issued as above.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as Sri.K.Jaju Babu, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Bank.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 6, seeking to place reliance on a Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in W.P(C) No.1586 of 2022, wherein the very same issue has been considered, concluding as follows;

“11. Petitioners dispute the defence of abolition of posts by contending that nothing is placed on record to show such abolition. Letter dated 25 November 2021 is on record. By that letter, respondent-bank decided to discontinue the "Part Time Substaff Recruitment Process 2017" and instead converted all PTS to full time cadre as a onetime measure. It was also directed that after conversion of PTS as Full Time Substaff, zones shall continue the house-keeping activities as per bank's outsourcing policy. Thus, by letter dated 25 November 2021, the bank apparently discontinued the policy of engaging or retaining PTS altogether by converting the existing PTS on full time basis. Thus on the basis of letter dated 25 November 2021, an inference of abolition of 450 posts of PTS can be drawn.

12. Outsourcing of house-keeping activities and abolition of posts of PTS is a policy decision taken by the bank, in which this court would be loath interfering. Merely because petitioners participated in the selection process for engagement as PTS and were selected, would not create any right in their favour to question the policy decision of the bank to opt for outsourcing of house-keeping services. Petitioners are not in employment of respondent-bank, it is not their case that their conditions of service are affected by the decision of outsourcing. We have no hesitation in holding that petitioners cannot question the policy decision of the respondent-bank to abolish posts, not to proceed ahead with recruitment process and instead opt for outsourcing of house-keeping services. The challenge set up by Petitioners to letters dated 6 April 2021 and 4 December 2021 must therefore fail.”

4. Even on the face of the afore, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought to place reliance on the averments contained in the reply affidavit to point out that there is promissory estoppel from the side of the respondent Bank, insofar as Ext.P9 was issued even on the face of the selection process having been noticed as above.

5. However, this Court notices that the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has extensively referred to the selection process in paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the judgment and has come to the conclusions noticed above.

6. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioners may not be justified in contending that there is promissory estoppel, when ultimately it is the policy of the Bank to engage the daily wage workers through a private agency. Therefore, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same would stand dismissed.