Delhi High Court
Shailesh Kumar And Ors. vs Punjab National Bank And Ors. on 6 March, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 2066/2017
% 6th March, 2017
SHAILESH KUMAR AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. P. Sureshan, Advocate.
versus
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. B.S. Shukla and Mr.
Shambhu Chaturvedi, Advocate
for R-2 & 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
W.P.(C) No. 2066/2017 and C.M. Appl. Nos. 9071-72/2017
1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, three petitioners seek the relief of being appointed as
Managers (Security) with the respondent no. 1/Punjab National Bank
as per its advertisement dated 20.8.2016 calling candidates for
appointment to various posts including the posts of Managers
(Security). The requirement/eligibility criteria for appointment to the
post of Manager (Security) as per the advertisement dated 20.8.2016 is
as under:-
Post Name of Grade/scale No. of Scale of pay
Code Post vacancies
14 Manager Min - 21 Bachelor's An Officer with 5
Years degree from years
(Security) any University Commissioned
Max - 35 recognized by Service in Indian
Years Govt. Of India Army/Navy/Air
Force
OR
Officers of
identical work in
para-military
forces with 5
years experience.
2. Petitioners claim that they are doing identical work as the
Commissioned officers of the armed forces or para-military forces and
therefore they were bound to be considered for appointment to the post
of Managers (Security) with the respondent no.1/bank, although
petitioners, admittedly, are only working as Sub-Inspectors with the
respondent no.3/Central Industrial Security Force (CISF).
3. I cannot agree with the argument urged on behalf of the
petitioners because the requirement in the aforesaid advertisement
shows that appointment to the post of Manager (Security) is of a
commissioned officer with the armed forces or para-military forces.
4. I had put a query to counsel for the petitioners that from
which rank the post of an officer begins with respondent no. 3/CISF,
the present employer of petitioners, and to which query counsel for the
petitioner did not give an answer, however, counsel for respondent nos.
2 and 3 states that the post of officer with respondent no. 3/CISF
begins from an Assistant Commandant, but petitioners are below the
rank of Assistant Commandant as they are only Sub-Inspectors.
Therefore, once petitioners are not at the level of officers of armed
forces or para-military forces, they only being Sub-Inspectors i.e the
rank below the rank of an officer, hence the petitioners did not satisfy
the eligibility criteria for being appointed to the posts of Managers
(Security) with the respondent no. 1/bank. Merely because petitioners
claim to be doing identical work will not make the post of Sub-
Inspector equal to that of an officer of armed forces or para-military
forces, inasmuch as, and as stated above, the post of an officer in
respondent no. 3/CISF where the petitioners are presently working
begins from the post of Assistant Commandant.
5. The writ petition and the pending applications are
accordingly dismissed.
MARCH 06, 2017/AK VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
