High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Heera Lal v. State Bank Of India And Others - WRIT - A No. 8373 of 1997  RD-AH 9508 (18 May 2007)
Judgment reserved on 24.4.07
Judgment delivered on 18.5.2007
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8373 of 1997
Heera Lal versus State of U.P. and others
Counsel for the petitioner- Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, Advocate
Counsel for the respondents- Sri Vipin Sinha Advocate
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the result communicated to him vide letter dated 18.12.1996 (Annexure-6) to the writ petition.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was engaged as temporary class IV employee in the State Bank of India Branch Phoolpur, District Allahabad and worked there since April 1975 to February, 1976.
A compromise dated 17.11.1987 was entered into between the Union of the workmen and the Management. In pursuance of the settlement a circular dated 2.5.1988 was issued by the State Bank of India, Karmik Vibhag local Head office at Lucknow to its all branches that those employees who had worked in the Bank for more than 240 days continuously in a calendar year or has worked for more than 90 days as temporary employees may be considered for permanent appointment.
Consequently an advertisement dated 28.8.1991 was published inviting applications for permanent appointment on the post of class IV from amongst whose employees who were working as temporary employees in the bank and fulfilled the required qualifications therein. The petitioner was called in the interview held by the bank on 14.11.91 for consideration. The petitioner accordingly appeared and gave interview for permanent appointment on class IV post in the bank but was not selected.
The petitioner was informed by letter dated 18.12.96 by respondent no.1 that the name of the petitioner is not in the list of the successful candidates as such he can not be given appointment.
The petitioner is aggrieved by non-issuance of the appointment letter or information about the appointment to him after the interview. It is claimed that on enquiry he came to know that S/Sri Heera Lal, Radhey Shyam Pandey, Shyam Narain Tiwari, Ganga Prasad, Shyamji and Satish who were working in the bank but were having less qualifications than the petitioner have been given permanent appointment by the bank.
The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner fulfills the required qualifications and experience, as such he is entitled to be appointed on the post of class IV employee. It is vehemently urged that since less qualified candidates than the petitioner have been selected and the petitioner has not been selected, hence the action of the bank is arbitrary and in violation of articles 14 and 16(4) of the Constitution.
It is submitted that since there are still some vacancies lying in the bank, the petitioner has legal and statutory right to be appointed on the said post under rules of circular dated 2.5.1988, which has been issued pursuant to the compromise under Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
It is in the above backdrop that the petitioner has prayed for stay of the effect of the interview held on 14.11.91 and for a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of class IV immediately.
It appears that later on an amendment has been incorporated by the petitioner pursuant to order dated 31.7.2001 whereby the petitioner has prayed for following additional reliefs-
(a) A writ, direction or order in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to correct the list drawn up in 1989 including the name of the petitioners.
(b) A writ, direction or order in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to put up both the selected candidates list drawn up in 1989 as well as drawn up in 1991.
(c) A writ, direction or order in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned letter dated 18.12.1996 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) and order dated 5.6.2000 (Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit) may be treated as Annexure-7 to the writ petition.
(d) A writ, direction or order in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned letter dated 18.12.96 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition).
(e) A writ, direction or order in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned letter dated 29.11.1989 (Annexure-2 of the rejoinder affidavit) may be treated as Annexure-8 to the writ petition.
The counsel for the respondent bank has relied upon the case of Hindustan Steel Works Constructions Ltd. and another Vs. Hindustan Steel Works Constructions Ltd. Employees Union, 2005(6) SCC-725 and submits that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy before the Labour Court under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
He further submits that the petitioner was empanelled in the year 1991 for the post of Messenger; that he can not claim appointment as a matter of right on the basis of mere empanelment in the list of Messenger drawn up in the year 1991. It is stated that absorption from that list was subject to the vacancies being available during the life of the said panel; and that the life of panel in the year 1991 was up to 31.3.1997 and as such its life exhausted in 1997.
In support of his above submissions, the counsel for the respondents has relied upon the following rulings.
1.J.T.1991 Vol.2 SC-380 Shankarashan Das Vs. Union of India;
2. S. Ranuka and others Vs. State of A.P. and another, SCC-2002 Vol.5 SCC-195;
3. Rani Luxmi Bai Kshetriay Vs. Chand Behari Kapoor and others etc., J.T. 1998 Vol.6 SC-355;
4.Syndicate Bank and others Vs. Shankar Pal and others, SCC-1997 Vol.6 page 584;
5. Government of Orissa Vs. Haraprasad Das, SCC-1998 Vol.1 page-487; and
6. State of U.P. and others Vs. Harish Chandra and others, SCC-1996 Vol. 9 page-309.
In Shankarashan Das (supra) and in S. Renuka and others (Supra) the Apex Court has held that mere empanelment does not give right of appointment to the selected candidates.
In Rani Luxmi Bai Kshetriya ( supra) it has been held that panel does not remain alive till all persons are appointed and in Syndicate Bank (supra) it has been held that empanelled candidates informed that the panel was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was not to confer o them any right to appointment.
Again in Government of Orissa and State of U.P. and others (supra) it has been held that empanelment or inclusion of one's name in the selection list does not give him a right to be appointed. Recruitment, after expiry of panel/select list, cannot be directed by the High Court.
It is admitted to the parties that the petitioner was empanelled as a class IV employee in the Bank. It is also not denied that the petitioner appeared in the interview for selection along with other candidates but was not selected. Any circular issued by the bank for consideration of permanent appointment in the bank does not give him absolute right to be appointed on the post, as it was only for consideration of such employees who were qualified according to the circular for being considered for appointment on permanent post of class IV in the bank. It may be that the other candidates who were less qualified than the petitioner may have performed better than the petitioner and got selected. The petitioner has not challenged the selection on the ground of malafide or on violation of procedure. He has neither challenged it on the ground of discrimination, which he has failed to prove. There is absolutely no material before the Court that there are still some vacancies available or that the petitioner has any statutory or legal right to be appointed even if the vacancies are available even though he failed in the interview.
In any case the services of the petitioner were temporary and according to law settled above an employee who has merely been empanelled has no legal right to be appointed on the post. It is also settled law that a temporary employee does not have any legal right to claim appointment on the permanent post by way of regularization dehorse the recruitment rules. There is also no material on record to show that the selection held by the bank in pursuance of the circular letter dated 2.5.1988 was otherwise illegal. The petitioner has failed to prove that he even has any statutory right to be considered for appointment in pursuance of circular letter dated 2.5.1988
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.