Delhi High Court
Inderjeet Singh & Ors vs Punjab National Bank on 24 May, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 24th May, 2012
+ W.P.(C) 13786/2009
INDERJEET SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ashok Bhalla, Adv.
versus
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Jagat Arora, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide instant petition, the petitioners have prayed as under:
"i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/setting
aside the Order/Letter dated 07.12.2009 to the extent of
posting of Petitioners to other Circle Offices outside Delhi upon
their promotion in JMG/Scale-I under Selectivity Channel, with
further appropriate directions to the Respondent Bank to post
the petitioners in Delhi on their promotion as officers in
JMG/Scale-I under Selectivity Channel against notified 109
vacancies at Delhi."
2. In pursuance of the Memorandum of settlement circulated by the
respondent/bank vide Personal Division Circular No.1643 dated 30.10.1988,
the notified vacancies for the officers in JMG/S-1 were to be filled up in the
following manner:-
"- 20% by Direct Recruitment from outsider.
- 30% (through Seniority Channel) from the senior clerks,
including Special Assistants through the process of seniority-
cum-absence of demerit and interview; and
- 50% (through Selectivity Channel) on the basis of written
test and interviews from the employees in the Clerical cadre
including Special Assistants having minimum eligibility as laid
down for the clerks through routine test and interview."
3. On 11.04.2009, the respondent/bank had issued a HRD circular
No.538 for selection of officers in JMG/S-1 from clerical cadre including
special assistants in terms of memorandum of settlement dated 29.10.2008.
4. On 21.05.2009, another HRD circular No.551 was issued changing
the date of written test from 14.06.2009 to 26.08.2009 for selection of
officers in JMG/S-1 from the clerical cadre including Special Assistants.
5. On 24.11.2009, the respondent/bank informed/notified the number of
vacancies indentified to be filled in terms of which Delhi Circle was having
65 vacancies on the basis of seniority-cum-absence -of-demerit channel and
109 vacancies on the basis of selectivity channel.
6. Pursuant to a written test held on 28.06.2009 for filling the vacancies
under Selectivity Channel, 93 employees were declared successful from
Delhi circle against the notified vacancies of 109 at Delhi.
7. Mr.Ashok Bhalla, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners were working as Special Assistants at Delhi and had participated
in Selection process for promotion as Officer in JMG/S-1 under selectivity
channel and were declared successful.
8. Learned counsel further submits that despite the availability of
notified 109 vacancies in Delhi, they were posted to another circle office
outside Delhi. The petitioners were asked to submit unconditional
acceptance latest by 10.12.2009 and report for duties at the place of posting
latest by 14.12.2009. Clause 7 of the selection/promotion letter of the
petitioners reads as under:-
"7. This officer is final and in case you fail to report on
14.12.2009 to the Circle Head, Circle Office: Bulandshahr, it
shall be presumed that you have not availed the offer and your
promotion shall be treated as cancelled. In such a case, you
will also be debarred from officiating/promotion in terms of the
Settlements."
9. Since, the petitioners did not report to the respective circles, therefore,
their promotions were automatically stood cancelled.
10. Learned counsel further states that the reporting time to the new circle
office was 14.12.2009, however, the petitioners filed the present petition on
10.12.2009. Notice was issued in the instant petition vide order dated
11.12.2009.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that though
there is no bar for transfer from one circle to another, however, the
sanctioned vacancy at Delhi circle were 109, the candidates qualified were
93 in number. However, the grievance of the petitioners is that, only the
petitioners, throughout the India, have been posted outside their respective
circle.
12. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the list of special assistant
candidates qualified in the written test held on 28.06.2009 (Annexure P-9 at
page-91). On perusal of the same, I find that not only the petitioners, the
circle of the other candidates have also been changed. Therefore, the stand
of the petitioner being discriminated has no basis. Though in the grounds,
the petitioner has taken the ground of malafide but there is no averment in
the body of the writ petition of malafide against any officer.
13. More so, in the proforma application, in column No.18, it is
specifically stated that in the event of selection as Officers in JMG/S-1, the
candidate may be posted anywhere in India. It is further stated that in the
event of his selection, the candidate may be considered for posting
accordingly.
14. Even as per column No.6 of the memorandum of settlement dated
29.10.1998, the candidates coming through the process of selectivity i.e.
written test and interview under Clause 2(c) were required to give their
choice of posting of three States in their applications, other than the State
where they were working, which will be kept in view in order of preference
by the bank while making their postings. Same choices were not however,
binding on the management. The posting of the petitioners from Delhi to
the circles in UP is strictly in terms of the provisions of settlement dated
29.10.1998 and in terms of notification to the federation.
15. Vide letters dated 07.12.2009, the petitioners were given time till
14.12.2009, to join their transferred postings at Bullandsher and Meerut;
however, none of the petitioners had joined the transferred places of
postings. In that eventuality, the best course would have been that the
petitioners should have first joined their duties at the transferred places of
posting and then would have made a representation, if any difficulty was
being faced by them. In terms of the clause 8 of the offer letters, the
petitioners stand debarred for promotion for a period of one year as officer in
JMGS-1.
16. As, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order issued by
the respondent bank, therefore, I am not giving any opinion on the
jurisdiction issue, whether as per the settlement dated 29.10.1998 arrived at
between the management of Punjab National Bank and All India Bank
Employees Association, the jurisdiction would be under the Industrial
Dispute Act.
17. The petitioner has not challenged the policy criteria or the
memorandum of settlement arrived between the employees & management.
Moreso, the petitioners have subsequently been promoted except the
petitioner No.4. Therefore, I find no fault in the impugned order. The
petitioners failed to establish their case on merit.
18. In view of the above discussion, the instant petition is dismissed.
19. No order as to costs.
SURESH KAIT, J
MAY 24, 2012
'anb'
