Prodyut Banerjee vs Union Of India & Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 4842 Cal

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 4842 Cal
Judgement Date : 19 September, 2024

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Prodyut Banerjee vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 September, 2024

Author: Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

Bench: Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

19.09.2024
Item No.15
 RP
 Ct. No.1
                                 WPA(P) 393 of 2024
                                  Prodyut Banerjee
                                         Vs.
                                 Union of India & Ors.


             Mr. Prodyut Banerjee
                               ....for Petitioner appearing in person
             Mr. Om Narayan Rai
             Mr. Ayush Sharma
                                ....for Respondent No.2

1. The petitioner, a practicing advocate, appearing in

person files this public interest litigation wherein he

seeks for a direction to recall and/or cancel and/or

quash the entire process of selection and

empanelment of the advocates made by the

respondent/State Bank of India in relation to

advertisement dated 30.03.2019.

2. After we have elaborately heard the petitioner

appearing in person and carefully perused the

materials placed on record including the averments

stated in the writ petition we find that the petitioner

is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition for

more than one reasons. Firstly, the empanelment

was done in the year 2019 and the petitioner, a

candidate of the said selection process, after failing

to get himself empanelled filed this public interest

litigation in 2024. Therefore, the writ petition is

liable to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate

delay and latches.

3. Apart from that, very recently the Hon'ble Division

Bench in the High Court of Judicature at Madras

had dealt with an identical case in the case of

Chairman and Managing Direction, UCO Bank vs.

K. Marimutthu & Ors. (W.A. No.2199 of 2023).

Much of the averments made in the present writ

petition were identical to that of the averments made

in the writ petition filed before the said High Court in

WP No.13832 of 2013. The learned Single Bench had

disposed of the writ petition by judgment and order

dated 31.03.2023 issuing various directions. All

nationalized banks were impleaded as respondents in

that writ petition. One of the banks, namely UCO

Bank, who was impleaded as respondent in the writ

petition, filed an appeal before the Division Bench

and by a common judgment dated 22.01.2024 the

appeals were allowed and the directions issued by

the learned Single Bench were set aside. At this

juncture it would be beneficial for us to refer to

certain paragraphs of the said judgment which has

in depth dealt with relationship of the empanelled

lawyers with that of the bank.

"11. The contour of the submissions of learned

counsel for the appellants is that the bank has its

own procedure for empanelment of lawyers. The

empanelment of lawyers is not an appointment to a

civil post so as to attract Article 16 of the

Constitution of India. Reservation is not

contemplated while empaneling the lawyers. The

engagement is merely contractual.

12.The Apex Court in a catena of judgments has laid

down the scope and ambit of the powers of judicial

review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It is well established that the power of judicial review

is not intended to assume a supervisory role. For a

public remedy enforceable under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the actions of the authority

need to fall in the realm of public law. The courts

will not have jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition

in a matter governed by contract, wherein public law

element would not be involved.

13.The empanelment of lawyers by the banks cannot

be on the pedestal of an employment for holding a

civil post. The lawyers empaneled by the bank are

not governed by the service rules of the bank. The

conditions of appointment of the empaneled lawyers

are not governed by any statute, rules or regulations.

14.Artilce 16 of the Constitution of India would apply

in matters of public employment or appointment to

any office under the State. We may extend the

concept of employment or appointment under the

office of the State to the instrumentalities of the State

also. However, for invoking Article 16 of the

Constitution of India, it will have to be demonstrated

that the matter is in the realm of public employment

or appointment to any office under the State. As the

lawyers engaged by the bank do not hold a civil post,

nor the relationship of master and servant exists,

Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India would not be

applicable. The criterion to apply the reservation

policy would not be attracted.

15. Each bank has its own procedure for

empanelment of the lawyers. The learned Single

Judge in the impugned judgment has referred to the

circulars issued by the respective nationalized banks

and public sector banks providing for the process of

empanelment. The procedure prescribed in the said

circulars contemplates the criteria for empanelment;

process of empanelment; authority for empanelment;

preparation of revised list by the zones;

distribution/allocation of works, other conditions for

empanelment; review of the performance; parameters

for reviewing the performance of the panel advocate;