Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anmol Chauhan vs Bank Of Maharasthra on 7 January, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 MP 876
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
Writ Petition No. 10928 of 2019
Parties Name Anmol Chauhan
Vs.
Bank of Maharashtra
Bench Constituted Hon'ble Shri Justice Vishal Dhagat
Whether approved for Yes/No
reporting
Name of Advocates for parties For petitioner:- Shri P.K. Waghmare,
learned counsel.
For respondents: Shri A.C. Thakur,
learned counsel.
Law laid down Significant paragraph numbers (O R D E R) 07.01.2020 Petitioner has filed the present writ petition making a prayer to issue an appropriate writ order to respondent No.1 i.e. Bank of Maharashtra to conduct document verification of petitioner for selection in Part Time Sub-Staff 2017 vacancies in District Balaghat. It was further prayed that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be directed to conduct the selection process fairly and according to the procedure established by law.
It was submitted by the petitioner that he had scored highest mark in District Balaghat and stood number one in the merit list. Despite the said fact, other persons who had secured less marks were called for document verification but petitioner has not been called for document 2 verification. Selection as per the advertisement dated 10.06.2017 is to be only through the mode of written examination with psychometric test strictly on merits. Respondents are giving preference to experienced candidates who had secured less number of marks in qualifying online written examination which is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of rule of law and violates Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Respondents are only interested to take experienced candidates and therefore, they should not have called the fresh candidates for the recruitment process as per advertisement dated 10.06.2017. Petitioner fulfills all the necessary eligibility criteria. Petitioner has also written a letter to the Zonal Officer of Bank of Maharashtra. He has also sought information under RTI Act, 2005. Petitioner was given reply by respondents that candidate who has been called for verification of documents have work experience in the bank and therefore, they have called.
In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner had made a prayer for aforesaid relief.
Respondents had filed reply to the said writ petition and it was stated by respondents that procedure as advertised by the bank is strictly being followed. It was stated by the bank that no other person with no experience and having less marks than the petitioner has been called for verification of documents. It is clearly mentioned in the advertisement that while making selection for post of Permanent Part 3 Time Sub Staff, a written test is to be conducted which is of 100 marks and minimum qualifying marks is 35. There is relaxation of 5% for candidates belonging to ST/SC/OBC/PWD/EXS/DXS categories as per government guidelines. If candidates securing minimum 35 marks in written test then he will qualify for further process of selection. As per the procedure, the qualified applicants were divided into Group A, B, C, D, E and F. In Group A, B, C are those candidates who had qualified in the written test and have worked with Bank of Maharashtra as Temporary Part Time Sub Staff. These candidates are either wait listed for post of Temporary Part Time Sub Staff after following recruitment process sponsored by Employment Exchange or those candidates who have worked for more than 240 days with or without break in a calendar year. Such candidates are put in Group A, B and C as per their experience. Other three categories of Group D, E and F. Group D consist of those Sub Staff who have worked for more than 90 days with the Bank in a calendar year with or without a break and Group E consist of candidates who had submitted experience certified of performing duties of cleaning and sweeping in a Government Institution or Public Sector Banks. Group F is of those candidates who have qualified in the written test but are not covered into Group A to E i.e. they are not experienced persons and are fresh candidates. It was further mentioned in the advertisement that first preference will be given to Group A, B and C and those who has highest working days will be given first 4 preference and thereafter, procedure is set for selecting candidates from Group D and E. The candidates who falls in Group D will give two additional marks in aggregate of written test marks for every completed year of engagement subject to maximum marks of 20. The candidates in Group E will be given one additional mark in aggregate of written test marks for every completed year of engagement subject to maximum of 10 marks. The applicant in Group D, E and F will be ranked in order of the aggregate total marks in case of equal marks, they will be ranked as per date of birth.
From the aforesaid advertisement, it is clear that candidates who falls in Group A, B and C will be given preference over other candidates though they may have secured less marks. Because employer is giving preference to experience. The candidates of Group D, E and F will be ranked together as per merit list.
From the aforesaid advertisement, it is clear that choice of employer in selecting candidates is on the basis of experience. Therefore, there is no wrong if employers decide the candidates with experience will be given preference. The other three categories of candidates from Group D are given two additional marks and Group E and grant one additional mark for one year experience. After granting said marks a joint merit list is prepared of Group D, E and F and as per the ranking in the said list, the candidates will be called for interview. 5
The lay down qualification for selection to a post is the prerogative of the employer and it is the employer who is to decide who is the best person to be selected for a particular type of work. If respondents are giving weight-age for experience for employment of sub staff, then it cannot be said to be arbitrary and illegal. Petitioner and likes of petitioner are also been considered and they are kept in the select list.
Respondents in its reply had submitted that the period of waiting list of two and half years and there is a possibility that petitioner may be called for verification of documents.
Petitioner was fully aware of the rules of the examination and he appeared in the examination under the said rules.
In view of above, it cannot be said that action of respondents in calling the candidates of Group A, B and C for documents verification earlier, then of Group F. Though they might have secured less marks is in any manner arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal.
Considering the same, writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.
(Vishal Dhagat) Judge sp/-
SUNIL Digitally signed by SUNIL KUMAR PATEL
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH, ou=GOVERNMENT,
postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
KUMAR 2.5.4.20=3ad456309c8cfa67fdf9acdac6949
bbc6ea3342f02b1af1bdaf3424a04c11d99,
serialNumber=5011b37a3dd5e32019f501f
PATEL
10e878d2f118732491b5f40bdc9923237d9
54365b, cn=SUNIL KUMAR PATEL
Date: 2020.01.08 17:32:57 +05'30'