Judgment · High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 28-9-2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMW.P.No.20963 of 2004andWPMP No.25236 of 20041.M.Kannan2.G.Chandrakanth3.V.Vasanthi4.S.Karthikeyan5.V.Vasantha Kumaran6.S.Mohammed Yousuff7.N.Ramesh8.S.Raghupathy9.G.Jayaraj10.M.A.Amaladas11.M.Sundar12.A.Thangappan13.B.S.Nagarajan14.C.Gunasekaran15.C.Philip16.A.Abdul Waheed17.M.Saravanan.. Petitioners Vs1.State Bank of India rep. By its Chairman Madam Cama Road State Bank Bhavan Mumbai2.State Bank of India Rep. By its Chief General Manager No.16, College Lane Circle Top House Nungambakkam Chennai 600 0063.State Bank of India AmbedkarTrade Union Rep. By its General Secretary 22 Rajaji Salai Chennai 600 0014.K.Karunanithi Messenger SBI, Chennai Main Branch Accounts Division https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5.S.Gunaneedhi General Attendant SBI, Chennai Main Accounts6.C.Varadarajan Messenger SBI, Chennai Main Branch Accounts7.M.Arivazhagan Lift Operator State Bank of India Commercial Branch Guindy, Chennai 600 032. (RR3 to 7 impleaded as per order dt.4.11.2004 in WPMP 32521/2004).. RespondentsWrit petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to fill upthe existing vacancies in the post of Record Keeper cum Cashier byappointing the selected candidates whose names were published by therespondent bank in the year 2001.For Petitioners: Mr.Jeyesh Dolia for M/s.Aiyar & DoliaFor Respondents: Mr.B.Rajendran for RR1 & 2 Mr.Kamatchi Sundaresan for RR3 to 7ORDERSeeking a writ of mandamus, the petitioners have brought forth thiswrit petition seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent bank to fill up theexisting vacancies in the post of Record Keeper cum Cashier by appointingthe selected candidates whose names were published by the Bank in the year2001.

The affidavit in support of the petition and the counter affidavitare perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side.

The case of the petitioners as could be seen is that the petitionerswho joined service in the 2nd respondent Bank long back, have been carryingon their service without any blemish; that a circular was issued by thesecond respondent bank in the year 2000 modifying and issuing furtherguidelines for promotion to the post of clerical cadre by revising theireligibility criteria to appear for written test; that as per the circular, these petitioners were eligible; that they were qualified pursuant to thewritten test; that under the circumstances, they were to be interviewed bythe Selection Committee; that all the candidates who came with theeligibility criteria as per the circular, were called for to write the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ written test; that the number of candidates to be called for the interviewwas fixed at 1.5=1 in the order of merit; that accordingly, thepetitioners were fully qualified and eligible for being promoted; thatthey have also been selected and placed in the panel; that the first batchof candidates numbering about 67, was released by the bank, out of which64 candidates were promoted, and postings have also been issued; thatthree out of the first batch of Record Keeper cum Cashier candidatesundertook All India Clerical Examination and got selected and have alsobeen absorbed; that the present vacancy is about 321; that the selectedcandidates list was kept pending from 2001; that no further candidateshave been appointed to the post of Record Keeper cum Cashier; thatinitially there were vacancies numbering 66; that the candidates numbering67, were given postings as Record Keeper cum Cashier from the selectedlist for the reasons that the 67th selected candidate had obtained themarks equal to the marks obtained by the 66th candidate; that while thepanel was kept pending all along in the past, the petitioners learnt thatthe bank without filling up those posts from and out of the panel of thecandidates selected pursuant to the selection held in the year 2001, islikely to resort to a fresh selection and again maintain a separate panelwithout any justification whatsoever; and that under the circumstances, itbecomes necessary that a direction has got to be given to the secondrespondent bank to fill up those posts from and out of the panel whereinthe petitioners' names find place, and orders be issued.

Advancing his arguments on behalf of the petitioners, the learnedCounsel would submit that originally, a panel was prepared; that pursuantto the written test conducted by the bank and written by the petitioners, they were also selected; that it is true that there were only 67candidates who appeared at that time, and the vacancies were filled up; that as regards the remainder, the petitioners' names find place in thepanel, and it is also pending; that while the matter stood thus, there isno question of preparation of a new panel or appointment of the freshcandidates by new selection that would arise, and hence, a directionbecomes necessary.

In answer to the above, the learned Counsel for the respondents 1and 2 would submit that the writ petition has got to be dismissed for thereasons that they want to get themselves to be taken as Record Keeper cumCashier; that the said post itself has been abolished; that apart fromthat, previously 65 vacancies were available; that those 65 vacancies havebeen filled up, and thus, there was no vacancy at all; that the panel waskept pending for the purpose of considering the remaining candidates fromthe panel if any vacancy arose; but, actually, it has not arisen so; thatfurther, there was a settlement entered into between the two Unions whichwould constitute the majority employees, on 27.12.2005, wherein it wasclearly agreed that a new recruitment policy has got to be adopted and tobe implemented; that accordingly, it has been implemented; that theresults have got to be announced; that while so, the instant writ petitionhas been brought forth; and that for the above reasons, it has got to bedismissed.

The learned Counsel for the newly impleaded parties namelyrespondents 3 to 7, supported the contentions put forth by the learnedCounsel for the respondents 1 and 2. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.

This Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition hasgot to be dismissed for more reasons than one. It is not in controversythat originally, a panel was prepared for the purpose of filling up thevacancy of Record Keeper cum Cashier by way of promotion. At the timewhen it was prepared in the year 2001, there were only 65 vacancies. Itis also not in controversy that those vacancies have already been filledup. True it is, the panel was kept pending for the purpose of filling upthe vacancies from and out of the panel of the candidates. But, in theinstant case, there is nothing to indicate that a vacancy has arisen. Once the panel was prepared in the year 2001, this Court is at a loss tounderstand how it could be kept pending for more than five years. It iswell settled proposition of law that the panel prepared for such apurpose, could be valid only for a period of one year.

It is also brought to the notice of the Court that there are twoUnions having majority of the employees, and they have also entered into asettlement in the year 2005, wherein it has been agreed between theparties that a new recruitment policy has got to be adopted, pursuant towhich, it has been followed, and the process was on, and the results areto be published. Now, at this juncture, it remains to be stated that thepost for which the petitioners seek themselves to be promoted and forwhich purpose, a panel was also prepared in the year 2001, according tothe respondent bank, has already been abolished. Under the circumstances, no question of either filling up the vacancy or making any promotion tothe said post would arise. It is also not in controversy that thepetitioners who constitute a Union, would come within the said two Unions, who have already entered into a settlement, which, according to therespondent Bank, would be binding on the petitioners also. Further, it isbrought to the notice of the Court that challenging the settlement, a writpetition in W.P.No.38472/2003 was also filed, and stay was requested; but, the Court was not inclined to grant stay. Now, for the reasons statedabove, this Court is of the opinion that this writ petition requires anorder of dismissal in the hands of this Court. Accordingly, it isdismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMP is also dismissed. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.nsv/ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To:1.The Chairman Madam Cama Road State Bank Bhavan Mumbai2.Chief General Manager State Bank of India No.16, College Lane Circle Top House Nungambakkam Chennai 600 006+ 1 CC To M/s.Aiyar and Dolia, Advocate SR NO.60580+ 1 CC To M/s.Balan Haridas, Advocate SR NO.60643+ 1 CC To Mr. B.Rajendran, Advocate SR NO.60621WP No.20963 of 2004pv[co]gp/1.10.