Arvind Kumar Pandey And 2 Ors. vs State Bank Of India,Corporate ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 6242 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 33
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 28070 of 2013
 

 
Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Pandey And 2 Ors.
 
Respondent :- State Bank Of India,Corporate Centre,Mumbai And 5 Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohit Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Satish Chaturvedi
 

 
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar,J.

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

Third supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

The petitioners are challenging the order of the respondents refusing to absorb the petitioners and to give the appointment under the Circulars dated 20.7.2010, 26.7.2010 and 18.8.2010.

The petitioners have been engaged as the Officer, Marketing and Recovery on 12.12.2009 on a contract basis for a period of two years which expired on 11.11.2011. The petitioners claimed absorption in the service on the basis of the aforesaid circulars. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that number of such contractual Officer, Marketing and Recovery has been absorbed by the Bank in the service.

Prima facie, we are of the view that such absorption is in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India and the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (2) and others, reported in 2006 (4) SCC-1.

Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 5, is directed to explain that under which authority of law such circulars have been issued and also explain that whether such circulars are not in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India and the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (2) and others (supra).

He prays for and is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks.

List in week commencing 18.11.2013.

Order Date :- 3.10.2013

OP