Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Asim Nayak vs Punjab National Bank & Ors on 14 December, 2021
14.12.2021 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Sl. No.18 CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
(PP) APPELLATE SIDE
WPA 19427 of 2021
Asim Nayak
Vs.
Punjab National Bank & Ors.
Mr. Saibal Acharya,
Mr. Kaushik Ch. Gupta,
Mr. Pradip Paul
....for the petitioner.
Ms. Parna Roy Choudhury
....for the respondent nos.2 & 3.
The petitioner says that he has been working as a
Badli Sweeper at Jhikuri Branch of United Bank of
India since 14th October, 2014. Pursuant to the
amalgamation of Oriental Bank of Commerce and
United Bank of India (in short, UBI) with Punjab
National Bank (in short, PNB) under the Scheme of
2020, there is no independent existence of UBI at
present. The petitioner says that though the
petitioner had been in continuous engagement as a
Badli Sweeper is presently is on the verge of losing his
job as PNB has a policy not to give appointment to
any cadre, including subordinate cadre, on temporary
basis and/or lump sum payment or on casual basis.
Temporary appointments are strictly prohibited in
PNB and such policy is to be implemented in UBI
also. A circular bearing No.510 dated 17th July, 2020
and a further memo dated 6th April, 2021 have been
referred to by the petitioner. The petitioner further
says that in terms of the information sought for by
PNB, the Deputy General Manager has stated that the
petitioner was in employment for 2368 days since 14th
October, 2014 in the Kharagpur Division. The
petitioner says that an advertisement for recruitment
for the post of Part-time Sweeper under subordinate
cadre in Kharagpur Circle has been published on 26th
November, 2021 for filling up 28 vacancies in the post
of Part-time Sweeper in subordinate cadre. The
minimum age to apply under the said advertisement
is 18 years while the maximum is 24 years with
applicable relaxation as on 1st July, 2021. The
relaxation in case of SC/ST candidates is 5 years,
while for Physically/orthopedically handicapped
candidates the same is 15 years. In case of OBC, the
relaxation is 3 years. Similarly, Ex-servicemen
candidates get an exemption of 3 years subject to
maximum age limit of 45 years. The petitioner says
that he has not been able to apply due to overage.
The petitioner, therefor, seeks relaxation of age limit
to allow him to appear in the recruitment process to
be conducted in terms of the said advertisement.
The petitioner is a Badli Sweeper. As a Badli
Sweeper, the petitioner has accrued no indefeasible
right to seek employment even though he may have
worked for 2368 days on continuous basis since 14th
October, 2014. The subject advertisement is a result
of the policy decision of PNB to which UBI wherein
the petitioner worked as a Badli Sweeper has merged
in. The policy in vogue in PNB is now binding on UBI.
In the above facts and circumstances, the
petitioner cannot be allowed to participate in the
recruitment process by relaxing the age, particularly
when the advertisement is very specific as to the
minimum and maximum age and the relaxation of
age allowable.
Judicial review in respect of a policy matter as
also in conducting a recruitment process by relaxing
age barrier is ordinarily uncalled for. This will
amount to transgression into a administrative arena
consciously left in the domain of the employer
concerned. Looking into the matter from another
angle, the relaxation of age, if permitted to the
petitioner, will render the age limit with allowable
relaxation fixed by the selection board otiose. There
will be innumerable candidates who have not been
able to apply due to age bar. Granting relaxation to
the petitioner will change the essential condition of
the advertisement which will not only deprive many
others who have not been able to apply for the age
barrier, but also invite applications in wave from
intending candidates who will also seek for similar
relaxation. The entire recruitment process in such a
case will be totally disrupted. The judicial
interference for such reason is also not called for.
The petitioner has cited a judgment reported in
2013 (1) CHN 9 (Gobinda Chandra Mondal vs.
Principal, Rabindra Mahavidyalaya). The factual
basis in the said judgment is completely different
from that of the case in hand. The said judgment was
rendered in the facts of that case and as such, the
ratio laid down therein has no manner of application
to the instant case. No relaxation of age on the basis
of the said judgement in Gobinda (supra) can be
granted to the petitioner in the instant case. In
another matter, an order was passed by this Bench
on 11th August, 2021 in WPA 11642 of 2021, wherein
I directed PNB to take a decision to the case of the
petitioner in the said writ petition in the light of the
office memo dated 6th April, 2021.
In the instant case, there is no scope of
considering the representation as correctly submitted
by the petitioner, the advertisement has already been
published which was not the case in the other writ
petition. The last date of applying thereunder is 15th
December, 2021. Allowing the petitioner age
relaxation will deprive the bank from receiving
application from similar candidates, which, in effect,
will reduce the option, which would have been
otherwise available to the Selection Committee.
Since I have already opined that the petitioner
should not be given the age relaxation in the facts of
the instant case, I dismiss the writ petition without,
however, any order as to costs.
Since I have not called for any affidavits,
allegations made in the writ petition are deemed to
have not been admitted by the respondents.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of
necessary formalities.
(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)
