Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank vs Shankarappa Tegur on 3 June, 2013
Bench: N.K.Patil, B.Manohar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2013
:PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR
Writ Appeal No.30720 of 2012 (S-RES)
Between:
Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank,
Head Office: Belgaum Road,
Dharwad-580 008,
Rep.by its Chairman.
Appellant.
(By Sri. S.S.Yadrami, Advocate)
And :
1. Shankarappa Tegur,
S/o. Channabasappa Tegur,
Age: 48 years,
Occ: Not known
R/o. Giriyappanavar Chawl,
Gulaganjikoppa,
Dharwad-8.
2. The Syndicate Bank,
Head Office, Manipal,
Rep.by its Chairman.
Respondents
(R1-served and un-represented;
Notice to R2 is dispensed with v/o dated 31.10.2012)
2
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, with a prayer to allow
the writ appeal by quashing the order passed by the
learned Single Judge dated 25.6.2012 in
W.P.No.7516/2006, in the interest of justice and equity.
This Writ Appeal coming on for Hearing this day,
N.K.PATIL J., delivered the following
:J U D G M E N T:
In this appeal, the appellant has questioned the legality and validity of the order dated 25th June 2012 passed in W.P.No.7516/2006, wherein, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1-petitioner in part, with a direction to the appellant- bank to consider petitioner's case for appointment in terms of the undertaking and compliance including communication to him by 9.7.2012.
2. In the writ petition, the respondent No.1- petitioner has sought for a direction to appoint him to the post of 'Junior Assistant' or any other equivalent post as per the paper advertisement published in 'Vijaya Karnataka', Hubli Edition dated 29.4.2006 contending 3 that, as per the notification issued by the Banking Service Recruitment Board, for short 'BSRB' inviting applications for the post of 'Cashier cum clerk/Junior Assistant' in the Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank, which is now amalgamated with the appellant herein. When he was found eligible was selected and though the bank issued a communication that he is appointed to the said post nevertheless did not give effect to that order. The similarly situated persons filed W.P.No.23072/1991 and connected petitions, where the learned Single Judge by order dated 8.2.1993 disposed off the petition by recording the undertaking of the bank that due to several constraints were unable to absorb the petitioners in the service of the bank and would certainly consider their cases and appoint them as and when the need arises. Some other similarly situated persons filed Writ Appeal 702/1993 and connected appeals where a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 7.1.1994 also recorded the undertaking 4 of the bank and disposed of the appeals. Petitioner alleging that the bank failed to fulfill the undertaking and invited applications for filling up the said posts, has presented the said petition seeking a mandamus to direct the bank to appoint him to the post of Junior Assistant.
3. The appellant-1st respondent has represented through its counsel in the said petition and filed statement of objections contending that, though an undertaking was extended before the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, nevertheless since the petitioner at this distance of time in the year 2006 does not possess the requisite qualification to fill up the post of 'Junior Assistant' is disentitled to any benefit from that undertaking. According to the appellant-bank, petitioner's selection was in the year 1989 and between that year and 2006 when the advertisement for recruitment to the vacancy of 'Junior Assistant' was issued, the eligibility criteria was changed and the 5 petitioner not possessing the requisite eligibility is disentitled to consideration for appointment.
4. The learned Single Judge, after considering the grounds taken by the petitioner in the petition and the stand taken by the Bank and after extracting the undertaking given by the bank in paras-3 and 4 of the impugned order, disposed of the said writ petition, directing the bank to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as per the undertaking given. Being aggrieved by the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant -bank, has presented this writ appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
6. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant Sri. S.S.Yadrami, at the outset is that, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside, on the ground that, the bank has specifically pointed out in 6 the objection and also it is his submission that, selection of the petitioner was made as early as in the year 1989 and for the vacancies invited in the year 2006, eligibility criteria was changed and as per the notification, the petitioner- respondent No.1 does not possess requisite qualification and under taking given is on a mistaken notion without taking into consideration the amalgamation of Malaprabha Grameena bank with the appellant-bank. Earlier the recruitment is made by the appellant- bank through Banking Service Recruitment Board and now it is by the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS). Further, he pointed out that, during the pendency of the writ petition, notification was issued, several persons were selected and appointment orders have been issued to them and they are not made as parties in this appeal and due to efflux of time and since petitioner- respondent No.1 does not possess any qualification and he is aged barred and therefore, appellant- bank is not 7 in a position to comply the directions issued by this Court. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.
7. After consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and after careful perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, it emerges that, the learned Single Judge has extracted the observation made in W.P.No. 23072/1991 and connected petitions in para-3 and also extracted para Nos. 9,10,12 of the judgment passed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.702/1993 and connected appeal in para-4 of the impugned order. The Division Bench has clarified at para-12 of its order in W.A.No.702/1993 as under "...as and when such vacancies are intimated by the concerned Grameen Banks to the first respondent-Board and the first respondent has to consider the recommendation of candidates like the appellants who are already selected, 8 the first respondent will have to go strictly according to the order of merit of the concerned appellants in the select list along with others. Further, it is significant to note that, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.Jaymohan Vs. State of Kerala and another reported in 1992 LAB 1C Page 2648 has held that, "It is well settled legal position that merely because a candidate is selected and kept in the waiting list, he does not acquire any absolute right for appointment. It is open to the Government to make the appointment or not. Even if there is any vacancy, it is not incumbent upon the Government to fill up the same". But this fact has not been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge when he has taken up the matter for consideration on 25.6.2012. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant-bank, as per the recruitment rules of Grameena Bank, the candidates should possess requisite qualification and the minimum age prescribed is 26 years and the persons who are beyond 26 years 9 are not eligible for the said post. But in the instant case, as on the date, petitioner- respondent No.1 is aged about 49 years. Further, it is significant note that, the undertaking is given by the counsel appearing for Malaprabha Grameena bank which is now amalgamated with the appellant herein, stating that, it will consider the appointment of petitioners as and when vacancies arise. Further, the Division Bench has observed in W.A.No.702/1993 and connected matters that, " It is therefore, obvious that as and when the concerned Grameena banks informed the Board that there are vacancies to be filled in those banks, the Board may give first opportunity to the already selected candidates like the appellants to be considered for appointment against such vacancies subject to their eligibility. But in the instant case, as on today, first respondent is not eligible to be accommodated in the existing vacancy. Therefore, issuing a direction to the appellant to comply the order passed by the learned 10 Single Judge is a futile exercise. Due to efflux of time, for no fault of the respondent No.1 he is unable to get a job in the bank. Taking these factors into consideration, the instant appeal is disposed of, with a direction to the appellant- bank to consider the case of the respondent No.1, if he is found eligible as on date and pass a speaking order and communicate the same to the respondent No.1, if not already communicated.
7. With the above observations, the writ appeal filed by the appellant stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE tsn*