Kerala High Court
V.J. Johnson vs State Bank Of India on 9 April, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/5TH ASHADHA, 1936
WP(C).No. 27178 of 2010 (V)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
1. V.J. JOHNSON,
VADAKANAZUTHU HOUSE, UPPATTY,
PANDALURE, TAMIL NADU-643 241.
2. ANISH KARUNAKARAN,
PUTHENKALAYIL HOUSE, THIRUTHIMEL,
NEDUVANAMCODE P.O.,CHENGANNUR-689 508.
3. NIKHIL KRISHNAN, KALAVARA HOUSE,
NEDUMKUNNAM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 542.
4. SHEBIN KURUVILLA,
KOTTARATHUMKUZHY HOUSE,
POOVATHODU P.O., BHARANANGANAM,
KOTTAYAM-686 578.
5. DIVYA. N., ASHWATHY,
AZHOLICKAL JUNCTION, MADUPPALLY P.O.,
CHANGANASSERY,KOTTAYAM-686 546.
6. LIGI. P.S., POURNAMI,
THENGUMCAVU P.O., MALLASSERY.
7. ANU SREEDHAR,
VELIYAMKUNNEL HOUSE,
ANTHINAD P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 651.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.C.KRISHNA,
SRI.SUNILNATH.
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. STATE BANK OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
CORPORATE CENTRE, MADAME CAMA ROAD,
MUMBAI-400 021.
2. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,
HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT,
STATE BANK OF INDIA,
CORPORATE CENTRE, MUMBAI-400 021.
WP(C).No. 27178 of 2010 (V)
3. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,
STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE,
KOVIL ROAD, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
4. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
HR DEPARTMENT, STATE BANK OF INDIA,
LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, KOVIL ROAD, THAMPANOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
5. THE REGIONAL MANAGER,
STATE BANK OF INDIA, BUSINESS OFFICE,
THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM-686 001.
BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH, SC, SBI.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 17/03/2014, ALONG WITH WP(C). NO. 35631 OF 2010 AND
WP(C).NO. 28936 OF 2010, THE COURT ON 26/06/2014 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
WP(C).No. 27178 of 2010 (V)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
EXT.P1 COPY OF THE LETTER OF APPOINTMENT DATED 09/04/2010 ISSUED
BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXT.P2 COPY OF THE SUGGESTION MADE IN THE REPORT UNDER THE
HEADING EXECUTIVE TO SUMMARY.
EXT.P3 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05/04/2010 ISSUED TO THE
1ST PETITIONERS 1 OF D.A.
EXT.P4 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05/04/2010 ISSUED TO THE
2ND PETITIONER.
EXT.P5 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05/04/2010 ISSUED TO THE
3RD PETITIONERS 1 TO 7.
EXT.P6 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05/04/2010 ISSUED TO THE
4TH PETITIONER.
EXT.P7 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05/04/2010 ISSUED TO THE
5TH PETITIONER.
EXT.P8 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05/04/2010 ISSUED TO THE
6TH PETITIONER.
EXT.P9 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05/04/2010 ISSUED TO THE
7TH PETITIONER.
EXT.P10 COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DATED 07/04/2010 SUBMITTED BY
THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXT.P11 COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DATED 07/04/2010 SUBMITTED BY
THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 11/04/2010.
EXT.P12 COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE
3RD PETITIONER.
EXT.P13 COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DATED 12/04/2010 SUBMITTED BY
THE 4TH PETITIONER.
EXT.P14 COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DATED 11/04/2010 SUBMITTED BY
THE 5TH PETITIONER.
EXT.P15 COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DATED 02/08/2010 SUBMITTED BY
THE 6TH PETITIONER.
...........2/-
WP(C).No. 27178 of 2010 (V)
EXT.P16 COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DATED 19/04/2010 SUBMITTED BY
THE 7TH PETITIONER.
EXT.P17 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/07/2010 ISSUED BY THE
DEPUTY MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CORPORATE DEVELOPMENT
OFFICER.
EXT.P18 COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT DATED 30/07/2010.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-
EXT.R1A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
WP(C).NO. 4712/2010 DATED 16/08/2010.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
rs.
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J.
----------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)NOS. 27178/2010, 28936/2010
& 35631 OF 2010
---------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2014
JUDGMENT
The petitioners in W.P.(C)No.27178/2010 were working as Officers-Marketing & Recovery (Rural), on contractual basis, in different branches of the State Bank of India. The recruitment of Officers-Marketing & Recovery (Rural) (hereinafter referred to as `OMR') was initiated by the respondent-Bank, in the year 2004, for spreading its business in rural section and such officers are governed by the State Bank of India Officers-Marketing and Recovery (Rural) Service and Conduct Rules (hereinafter referred to as `the OMR Service Rules'). Going by Clause 4.1 of the Service and Conduct Rules, the appointment of OMRs will be purely contractual in nature for a specified period. The contract will be renewable on completion of contractual period depending on the performance and suitability of OMRs at the Bank's discretion and the need of the Bank. After due process of selection, the petitioners were appointed as OMRs on contract basis, for a period of 2 years with effect from 7/4/2008. Ext.P1 is the letter of appointment W.P.(C)NOS. 27178, 28936 & 35631 /10 -2- issued to the 1st petitioner, by the General Manager (HR), the 4th respondent. Similar letters of appointment were issued to other petitioners as well and all of them joined different branches of the respondent-Bank. The respondent-Bank conducted a study on `Attrition of OMRs from SBI' and the suggestion made on 31/3/2009, in Ext.P2 `Executive Summary' of the report, is absorption of OMR's on permanent basis. Notwithstanding that suggestion for absorption, the respondent-Bank issued a notification dated 30/1/2010 inviting applications for filling up the post of Probationary Officers (Rural Business), by direct recruitment, along with Probationary Officers in the general stream. The said notification was challenged by the 7th petitioner and others in W.P.(C)4712/2010, seeking among other reliefs, a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent-Bank to implement the recommendation evidenced by Ext.P2. The said notification was also challenged by the State Bank of India Officers Welfare Association in W.P.(C)No.7431/2010 filed before the High Court of Judicature, Madras and that Court stayed further proceedings in the matter. While so, the petitioners W.P.(C)NOS. 27178, 28936 & 35631 /10 -3- completed their tenure of appointment on 6/4/2010 and they were issued with Exts.P3 to P9 letters of the 4th respondent informing that, they would stand discharged from the respondent-Bank with effect from 6/4/2010. Aggrieved by Exts.P3 to P9, the petitioners preferred Exts.P10 to P16 appeals before the 3rd respondent. As evidenced by Ext.P17, the Executive Committee of Central Board of the respondent-Bank in its meeting held on 14/7/2010, approved a policy for permanent absorption of OMRs, Technical Officers (Farm Sector), Micro Finance Marketing Officers and Customer Relationship Executives (PB & ME) in Junior Management Grade Scale-I (JMGS-1) as Specialist Officers, at the initial stage of pay, as under:-
JUDGE Existing Designation New Designation Officers-Marketing & Recovery Rural Marketing & Recovery (Rural) Officers Technical Officers (Farm Farm Sector Technical Officer Sector) Micro Finance Marketing Micro Finance Marketing Officers Officers Customer Relationship Customer Relationship Officer Executives (ME) (ME) Customer Relationship Customer Relationship Officer Executives (PB) (PB) Going by Ext.P17, all officers under the above categories, who W.P.(C)NOS. 27178, 28936 & 35631 /10 -4-
are in the service of the respondent-Bank as on 14/7/2010 will be eligible for absorption, subject to having achieved minimum 60% targets during the year 2009-10. The performance of the officers will be assessed as per the performance evaluation matrix advised by the Strategic Business Units (SBUs). Clause (xiv) of Ext.P17 provides that, the benefit of the scheme of permanent absorption will be applicable also to those OMRs/TOFSs who have filed court cases seeking permanent absorption. Pursuant to Ext.P17, the 4th respondent has issued Ext.P18 offer of appointment to all OMRs presently working, including those appointed in the year 2009. But, the petitioners were denied absorption. Hence they approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.27178/2010, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P3 to P9; seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to re-employ them as OMRs and regularise their service; and for other consequential reliefs.
2. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.28936/2010 was appointed as Customer Relationship Executive (Personal Banking) (hereinafter referred to as `CRE-PB') in the respondent-Bank, W.P.(C)NOS. 27178, 28936 & 35631 /10 -5- initially for a period of 2 years from 20/8/2007 to 19/8/2009. The recruitment of CRE-PBs are governed by the State Bank of India Customer Relationship Executives Service and Conduct Rules (hereinafter referred to as `the CRE Service Rules'). The petitioner's contract period was later renewed for a further period of one year from 20/8/2009 to 19/8/2010 vide Ext.P2 letter of renewal of contract. According to the petitioner, he had achieved the minimum target of 60% during the year 2009-2010. The SBI Officers Association (Patna Circle) has issued Ext.P3 Circular, regarding opportunity for permanent absorption to officers appointed on contract basis. As per Ext.P3, those CRE-PB, who are in the service of the respondent-Bank as on 14/7/2010 will be eligible for absorption as Customer Relationship Officer (PB) (hereinafter referred to as `CRO-PB'), subject to having achieved minimum 60% target during the year 2009-10. The Kerala Circle has also issued a circular similar to Ext.P3. Though, the petitioner satisfied all the requirements which are necessary for permanent absorption into the service of the respondent-Bank, excluding him, all the remaining 29 CRE-PBs were absorbed into W.P.(C)NOS. 27178, 28936 & 35631 /10 -6- regular service. When the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 performance report some inadvertent mistakes crept in, for the year ending March, 2010, which were corrected and Ext.P5(a) annual performance report was submitted before the respondent- Bank along with Ext.P5 letter. But, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P6 communication dated 18/8/2010 stating that, his service stands discharged from respondent-Bank with effect from 18/8/2010 and he was directed not to attend the office after 19/8/2010. Aggrieved by Ext.P6, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P8 appeal before the respondent-Bank. Thereafter, he has approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.28936/2010 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P6 communication; a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-Bank to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P8 within a time limit; and for other consequential reliefs.
3. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.35631/2010 was working as OMR in the Kalamassery North Branch of the respondent- Bank. Though, she joined service on 7/4/2008, she had to compulsorily go on medical leave from 23/2/2009 till 26/3/2009.
W.P.(C)NOS. 27178, 28936 & 35631 /10 -7-
Thereafter, she worked between 27/3/2009 to 5/4/2009. Since then her health did not permit her to work and she availed Privileged Leave for a period of one month from 6/4/2009 to 6/5/20009. Thereafter, she was granted Maternity Leave from 7/5/2009 to 7/11/2009 and in between she had undergone a surgery also. After the expiry of Maternity Leave, she joined duty on 23/11/2009, but she was informed by the respondent-Bank that her services will be terminated immediately. While so, on 6/4/2010 she was informed that her services have been terminated by a letter issued by the respondent-Bank, a copy of which however had not been served on her. Therefore, she made Ext.P1 representation and thereafter caused Ext.P2 lawyer's notice, which then did not evoke any response. Later, she received Ext.P3 reply issued by the respondent-Bank informing that her services have been terminated as she was on contract basis. Ext.P4 is the order of appointment dated 14/3/2008 issued to the petitioner for a period of 2 years. Exts.P5 to P7 are the communications issued by the respondent-Bank alleging charges of disobedience against her. Ext.P8 is the reply received by the W.P.(C)NOS. 27178, 28936 & 35631 /10 -8- petitioner on her compliant regarding non-receipt of salary and allowances. She submitted Ext.P9 appeal to set aside the order of termination. Thereafter, she received Ext.P10 communication informing that, the contract of service has come to an end on 6/4/2010 upon the expiry of the period of contract and there is no provision in the Service Rules for filing of appeal in the case of automatic cessation of the contract service upon the expiry of the period of contract stipulated in the appointment order. In such circumstances, the petitioner approached this court in W.P.(C) No.35631/2010, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P5, P6, P7 and P10; a declaration that the termination of her service from the respondent-Bank as Officer- Marketing & Recovery is violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, void, inoperative and unenforceable; and for other consequential reliefs.
4. The respondent-Bank has filed counter affidavit in all the three Writ Petitions contending, inter alia, that the appointment of the petitioners were purely on contractual basis for a specified period and they have no vested right to claim W.P.(C)NOS. 27178, 28936 & 35631 /10 -9- extension of their contract of employment. The petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.27178/2010 & 35631/2010 are governed by the Officers-Marketing and Recovery (Rural) Service and Conduct Rules and the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.28936/2010 is governed by the Customer Relationship Executives Service and Conduct Rules, framed by the respondent-Bank. The respective contracts were renewable on completion of the contractual period depending on the performance and suitability of the OMRs/CRE-PB and the need of the respondent-Bank, at its discretion. The petitioners ceased to be the employees of the respondent-Bank on completion of the contract period of their appointment stipulated in the respective contracts and there is no illegality in the orders impugned in the Writ Petitions and such orders were issued as it was found that their contract of employment need not be renewed on objective consideration as per the relevant Service and Conduct Rules. The appeals filed by the petitioners are not maintainable as an appeal contemplated in the respective Service Rules will lie only in the case of termination of the contract service before the expiry of the period of contract. The W.P.(C)NOS. 27178, 28936 & 35631 /10 -10- petitioners have no vested right for renewal of the contract. Only those who were in service as on 14/7/2010 are eligible for absorption subject to having achieved 60% target during the year 2009-10. Since the petitioners were not in service as on 14/7/2010 they cannot claim the said benefit and are not eligible for re-appointment, absorption or extension of contract service. The fact that some of the officers recruited along with the petitioners and also those recruited subsequently have been offered extended contract and absorption does not entitle the petitioners for extension of their contract of appointment or absorption in service.
5. In the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.27178/2010, the 1st respondent further contended that, W.P. (C)No.4712/2010 filed by the 7th petitioner and others was dismissed as withdrawn, vide Ext.R1(a) judgment. W.P.No.7421/2010 filed before the High Court of Judicature, Madras, has already been disposed of without granting any relief and the interim order is not now in force.
6. In the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) W.P.(C)NOS. 27178, 28936 & 35631 /10 -11- No.28936/2010, the 1st respondent further contended that, as evidenced by Ext.P4 performance report/statement, the petitioner has not attained the required 60% target. The statement in Exts.P5 and P5(a) are incorrect and the contention of the petitioner relying Ext.P5(a) that he has achieved the target of 64.4% during the period 2009-10 is unfounded.
7. In the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.35631/2010, the 1st respondent further contended that, the initial appointment of the petitioner on contract basis for a period of 2 years was based on Ext.R4(a) offer of appointment dated 9/4/2008. The fact that, the contract of appointment is not extended on expiry of the period has been duly communicated to the petitioner vide Ext.R4(b) letter, which she refused to accept, as evident from Ext.R4(c) letter of the Branch Manager. Thereafter, Ext.R4(b) letter was communicated to the residential address of the petitioner, by registered post, which was returned undelivered with an endorsement `not known', as evident from Ext.R4(d) envelop. The petitioner has not attained 60% target allotted to her vide Ext.R4(e) communication. Moreover the total W.P.(C)NOS. 27178, 28936 & 35631 /10 -12- number of days she had worked during the year 2009-10 is only 92 days and she had been in the habit of taking unauthorised leave and absenting herself unauthorisedly. Her performance as OMR for the relevant period, as revealed from Ext.R4(f), is much below 20% as against the minimum of 60% required to be attained. The termination of her service is not as a punishment and it is only a cessation of employment on completion of expiry of the tenure of the contract. The petitioner has also filed a reply affidavit, reiterating that, the termination of her contract of appointment is for availing of leave without sanction/authorisation and the counter affidavit repeatedly makes references about the charges against her, which is the only reason for termination.
8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the three Writ Petitions and also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank.
9. The petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.27178/2010 & 35631/2010 were working as OMRs, on contract basis, in different branches of the respondent-Bank and they were W.P.(C)NOS. 27178, 28936 & 35631 /10 -13- governed by the OMR Service Rules issued by the respondent- Bank. On the other hand, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.28936/2010 was working as CRE-PB, on contract basis, and he was governed by the CRE Service Rules issued by the respondent-Bank. Though, the appointment of the petitioners as OMRs/CRE-PB were purely contractual in nature for a specified period, going by the relevant Service Rules such contracts are renewable on completion of contractual period depending on the performance and suitability of the persons so appointed, at the bank's discretion and the need of the Bank. The stand taken by the respondent-Bank in its counter affidavit filed in all the three Writ Petitions is that, the petitioners ceased to be employees of the respondent-Bank on completion of the contract period of their appointment stipulated in the respective orders. Termination orders were issued on completion of the period of the contract appointment as it was found that their contract of employment need not be renewed on objective consideration as per the relevant Service and Conduct Rules. A mere perusal of the letters of termination issued by the respondent-Bank, which are W.P.(C)NOS. 27178, 28936 & 35631 /10 -14- marked as Exts.P3 to P9 in W.P.(C)No.27178/2010, as Ext.P6 in W.P.(C)No.28936/2010 and as Ext.R4(b) in W.P.(C) No.35631/2010 make it abundantly clear that, the only reason stated by the respondent-Bank for discharging the petitioners is expiry of the period of the contract of appointment. It is trite law that, reasons cannot be substituted for the first time in the counter affidavit. This principle has been laid down by the Apex Court way back in the year 1978, in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978 (1) SCC 405).
10. Ext.P2 in W.P.(C)No.27178/2010 is the `Executive Summary' containing the suggestion made on 31/3/2009, in a study conducted on `Attrition of OMRs from SBI'. It is stated in Ext.P2 that, there were about 5000 OMRs in the respondent-Bank and the strength is proposed to be increased to 6000 by next year, i.e., by 2010. The initiative of inducting Marketing and Recovery Officers has proved to be an effective strategy in boosting agriculture lending and achievement of 18% benchmark for lending to the sector. Both Public and Private Sector Banks are recruiting Marketing and Recovery Officers on permanent W.P.(C)NOS. 27178, 28936 & 35631 /10 -15- basis, which has attracted large number of OMRs working in the respondent-Bank, as they work on contract basis. This has resulted in high rate of attrition; in some Circles as high as over 50%. In view of the observation that most of the OMRs have preferred to leave the respondent-Bank on getting permanent job elsewhere, it was suggested in Ext.P2 to consider recruitment or absorption of such officers on permanent basis, as the outcome of the present system of contractual appointment not only creates loss of trained manpower but also it strengthens the competitors by positioning such personnel against the respondent-Bank in the market.
11. It was thereafter, the Executive Committee of Central Board of the respondent-Bank in its meeting held on 14/7/2010, approved a policy for permanent absorption of OMRs, CREs, etc., in Junior Management Grade Scale-I (JMGS-1) as Specialist Officers. Going by Ext.P17 in W.P.(C)No.27178/2010, OMRs will be absorbed in JMGS-1 as Specialist Officers, at the initial stage of pay, as Rural Marketing & Recovery Officers. Similarly, CRE- PBs will be absorbed in JMGS-1 as Specialist Officers, at the W.P.(C)NOS. 27178, 28936 & 35631 /10 -16- initial stage of pay, as Customer Relationship Officer (PB). As per Para 2.i of Ext.P17, the officers who are in service of the respondent-Bank as on 14/7/2010 will be eligible for absorption, subject to having achieved minimum 60% targets during the year 2009-10 and the performance of the officers will be assessed as per the performance evaluation matrix advised by the Strategic Business Units (SBUs). As per Para 2.xiv of Ext.P17, the benefit of the scheme of permanent absorption will be applicable also to those OMRs/TOFSs who have filed court cases seeking permanent absorption.
12. The stand taken by the respondent-Bank in its counter affidavit is that, only those who were in service as on 14/7/2010 are eligible for absorption subject to having achieved 60% target during the year 2009-10. Since the petitioners were not in service as on 14/7/2010 they cannot claim the said benefit and are not eligible for re-appointment, absorption or extension of contract service. I find absolutely no merit in the above contention taken by the respondent-Bank. In the letters of termination issued by the respondent-Bank, which are marked as W.P.(C)NOS. 27178, 28936 & 35631 /10 -17- Exts.P3 to P9 in W.P.(C)No.27178/2010, as Ext.P6 in W.P.(C) No.28936/2010 and as Ext.R4(b) in W.P.(C)No.35631/2010, the respondent-Bank has no case that, such orders were issued as it was found that their contract of employment need not be renewed on objective consideration and the need of the Bank, in terms of the relevant Service and Conduct Rules.
13. The respondent-Bank has the trappings of `State' being `other authority' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The respondent-Bank thus being `State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India is expected to act fairly and reasonably. When the relevant Service Rules provide for renewal or extension of the contract of appointment on completion of contractual period, depending on the performance and suitability of the persons so appointed, at the bank's discretion and the need of the Bank, the respondent-Bank has got a legal duty to consider the entitlement or eligibility of the petitioners for renewal or extension of the contract appointment, subject to fulfilment of the criteria for such extension, especially when it considered the entitlement of other similarly situated persons.
W.P.(C)NOS. 27178, 28936 & 35631 /10 -18-
14. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent- Bank, relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation V. Salimbhai Umrabhai Mansuri (AIR 2013 SC 2762) and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in K. S. Sofhi v. Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and others (1984 KLT 32) contended that, as the petitioners services were terminated on the expiry of the period of contract, it would not amount to any violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India even when the respondent-Bank renewed contracts in other cases. I am unable to agree with this contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent- Bank. In the case on hand, though the appointments of the petitioners were on contract basis for specified periods, going by the provisions of the Service Rules governing the filed, such appointees are entitled for renewal or extension of the contract of appointment on completion of contractual period, depending on the performance and suitability, at the bank's discretion and the need of the Bank. Therefore, the principles laid down in the judgments referred to above cannot be made applicable to the W.P.(C)NOS. 27178, 28936 & 35631 /10 -19- facts of the present case.
15. In the light of the `Executive Summary' containing the suggestion made on 31/3/2009, in a study conducted on `Attrition of OMRs from SBI', produced as Ext.P2 in W.P.(C) No.27178/2010 and also the approval granted by the Executive Committee of Central Board of the respondent-Bank in its meeting held on 14/7/2010, evidence by Ext.P17 in W.P.(C) No.27178/2010, to the policy for permanent absorption of OMRs, CREs, etc., in Junior Management Grade Scale-I (JMGS-1) as Specialist Officers, the respondent-Bank cannot be permitted now to contend that, there was no need for the Bank to continue or extend the period of contract of the petitioners in these Writ Petitions, especially when the Bank had absorbed a large number of such contract employees in to regular service based on the approved policy in Ext.P17. If the respondent-Bank had considered the extension of the contact employment of the petitioners, at appropriate time, depending on their performance and suitability, the petitioners could have been continued as OMRs and CREs on contract employment, as on 14/7/2010, W.P.(C)NOS. 27178, 28936 & 35631 /10 -20- entitling them to seek absorption in to regular service, subject to having achieved 60% target during the year 2009-10. Therefore, once the letters of termination issued by the respondent-Bank, i.e., Exts.P3 to P9 in W.P.(C)No.27178/2010, Ext.P6 in W.P.(C) No.28936/2010 and Ext.R4(b) in W.P.(C)No.35631/2010 are interfered with, the petitioners will be entitled to have their claim for absorption considered at the hands of the respondent-Bank, subject to having achieved 60% target during the year 2009-10. For that purpose, the performance of the petitioners will have to be assessed as per the performance evaluation matrix.
16. As far as the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.35631/2010 is concerned, it is a fact that, she could not attain 60% target during the relevant year, as she was a pregnant woman. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Occupational Health and Safety Association V. Union of India and others (2014 (1) KHC SN 19 (SC)) and the order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Thiruvananthapuram Bench) in Jisha Pavoor and another v. Kerala Public Service Commission and another (2014 (1) KHC 354) the learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)NOS. 27178, 28936 & 35631 /10 -21- that Writ Petition would contend that, Article 42 of the Constitution of India enjoins the State to make provisions for securing just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief and the stand of the respondent-Bank that a pregnant women should lose her opportunity for extension of period of contract appointment only for the reason that she could not attain the prescribed target during such period is in direct conflict with the duty cast on the respondent-Bank, under Article 42 of the Constitution of India. The documents relating to the treatment the petitioner had undergone are not on record. Due to dearth of materials, I am unable to consider such a plea made by the petitioner. But, it is made clear that, the respondent- Bank, which has the trappings of `State' being `other authority' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, should keep in mind that, if a pregnant women lose her opportunity to get extension of her term of contract or absorption in service only for the reason that it was not safe for her to achieve the target prescribed by the respondent-Bank for such extension or absorption, it would be in direct conflict with the duty cast under W.P.(C)NOS. 27178, 28936 & 35631 /10 -22- Article 42 of the Constitution of India.
17. In the result, it is declared that, the action of the respondent-Bank in issuing letters of termination to the petitioners, which are marked as Exts.P3 to P9 in W.P.(C) No.27178/2010, as Ext.P6 in W.P.(C)No.28936/2010 and as Ext.R4(b) in W.P.(C)No.35631/2010, without considering whether they are entitled for renewal or extension of their contract of appointment on completion of contractual period, in terms of State Bank of India Officers-Marketing and Recovery (Rural) Service and Conduct Rules / State Bank of India Customer Relationship Executives Service and Conduct Rules, depending on their performance and suitability and also non-consideration of their claim for absorption in terms of the approved policy evidenced by Ext.P17 in W.P.(C)No.27178/2010, are per-se arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
18. In the result, these writ petitions are disposed of setting aside the letters of termination issued to the petitioners referred to above and directing the respondent-Bank to consider W.P.(C)NOS. 27178, 28936 & 35631 /10 -23- the question of renewal or extension of their contract of appointment on completion of contractual period, in terms of State Bank of India Officers-Marketing and Recovery (Rural) Service and Conduct Rules/State Bank of India Customer Relationship Executives Service and Conduct Rules, depending on their performance and suitability. In case, the petitioners are found eligible for renewal of extension of contract of appointment, the respondent-Bank shall further consider their claim for absorption in terms of the approved policy evidenced by Ext.P17 in W.P.(C)No.27178/2010, and pass appropriate orders, with notice to the petitioners and giving them an opportunity of being heard, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
No order as to costs.
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE dsn