Calcutta High Court
United Bank Of India vs Sudip Pradhan & Anr on 17 December, 2019
Author: Soumen Sen
Bench: Soumen Sen, Saugata Bhattacharyya
GA No.2691 of 2019
APOT No.145 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
UNITED BANK OF INDIA
-Versus-
SUDIP PRADHAN & ANR.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA
Date : 17th December, 2019.
Appearance:
Mr. R.N. Majumdar, Adv.
Mr. Sourav Chakraborty, Adv.
Mr. Supratim Bhattacharjee, Adv.
...for the appellant.
Mr. Sudeep Sanyal, Adv.
Mr. Sukanta Das, Adv.
Ms. Lopamudra Moitra, Adv.
...for the respondent.
The Court : In spite of our earlier direction on 10th December, 2019 the bank is unable to produce the scheme that was in operation in November, 2015. We have considered the earlier schemes wherefrom it appears that for the year 2005, for a subordinate employee no formal qualification was required and the candidate did not require to be literate. However, a candidate should not have passed Class-IX standard. This was diluted in 2007 when the minimum standard was set at Class-VIII and the maximum at Class-XII. From the document appearing at page 41 of the stay petition, at which reliance has been placed by both the 2 parties, it appears that the minimum qualification for a subordinate employee would be Class-X pass and the maximum would be Class-XII standard and not passed.
We had directed the appellant to demonstrate before us the recruitment policy as on 9th November, 2015 for appointment of a subordinate employee on compassionate ground. This direction was passed in view of the clear finding by the learned Single Judge that no recruitment policy showing that the appellant requires a higher qualification as minimum qualification for consideration under the compassionate appointment scheme could be produced before the learned Single Judge and the Leaned Single Judge had proceeded on the basis of the recruitment policy relied upon at page 41 of the stay petition wherein it has been clearly stated that for sub-staff the minimum qualification should be Class-X pass and maximum Class-XII standard and not pass. The bank being unable to demonstrate that the said recruitment policy would be applicable to the petitioner when he made the application on 9th November, 2015 had proceeded on the basis of the earlier scheme and the recruitment policy which either could be the 2005 circular or the 2007 circular. In either case, the petitioner would be entitled for compassionate appointment.
At the request of Mr. R.N. Majumdar, learned Advocate for the bank, we adjourn this matter till 19th December, 2019 in order to enable the appellant to produce the complete set of recruitment rules and the Board resolution relating to the sub- 3 ordinate employees prevailing at the relevant point of time i.e. November, 2015. In the event the bank is unable to produce the said document and/or circular on the adjourned date, it shall be presumed that the bank has no explanation to offer to deny employment to the petitioner on the basis of the said circular. The said direction is peremptory.
(SOUMEN SEN, J.) (SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.) A/s.