Kerala High Court
Charle Thomas vs North Malabar Gramin Bank on 10 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2021/19TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.25913 OF 2011(L)
PETITIONERS:
1 CHARLE THOMAS,
PANICKARIDAM,
AARPOOKARA EAST P.O., KOTTAYAM.
2 SARITHA BABU,
SAMARUDA, KOTTAPURAM
PARAVUR SOUTH, KOLLAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER,
NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,
N.M.G. TOWERS, POST PALLIKUNNU,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670 004.
2 THE CHAIRMAN,
NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,
N.M.G. TOWERS, POST PALLIKUNNU,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670 004.
3 THE BRANCH MANAGER,
NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,
KURUPPANTHARA BRANCH,
KOTTAYAM 686603.
4 THE BRANCH MANAGER,
NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,
SOUTH PARAVOOR BRANCH,
KOLLAM 691 301.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 10-03-2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).28832/2011(D), THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) Nos.25913 & 28832 of 2011
:2 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2021/19TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.28832 OF 2011
PETITIONERS:
RAJANI K.P.,
D/O P.KUNHIRAMAN,
KARATT HOUSE, KANAKAPPALLI POST,
VIA PARAPPA, KASARGOD DISTRICT-671533
BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER,
NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,
N.M.G. TOWERS, POST PALLIKUNNU,
KANNUR DISTRICT - 670004
2 THE CHAIRMAN,
NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,
N.M.G. TOWERS, POST PALLIKUNNU,
KANNUR DISTRICT - 670004
3 THE BRANCH MANAGER,
NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,
PARAPPA BRANCH, KASARAGOD DISTRICT -671533
R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.ANEESH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 10-03-2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).25913/2011(L), THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) Nos.25913 & 28832 of 2011
:3 :
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 10th day of March, 2021
[WP(C) Nos.25913 & 28832 of 2011]
The petitioners in these writ petitions seek to
command the respondents to include the name of the
petitioners as well in the select list of temporary Messengers
and to direct the respondents to reserve posts of temporary
Messenger/Office Attendant (multi purpose) in the service of
the Bank.
2. The petitioners state that they were appointed in
the service of North Malabar Gramin Bank, the 1 st respondent.
The post of Messenger/Sweeper cum Office Attendant (multi
purpose) in the service of the Bank is a Group C post. As per
Recruitment Rules, the said post is required to be filled up by
direct recruitment.
WP(C) Nos.25913 & 28832 of 2011
3. The petitioners contend that in the absence of any
directly recruited persons, the Bank was engaging persons on
temporary basis. The persons like the petitioners, who were
temporarily engaged, were permitted to continue in service for
a considerably long time.
4. The Unions took up the issue of regularisation of
such employees. The management agreed that persons
working on temporary basis in the Bank will be given age
relaxation and certain percentage of vacancies will be
reserved for them.
5. Though there was such an understanding, no
effective steps were taken by the Bank to regularise the
services of the persons like the petitioners who were working
on temporary basis. Therefore, W.P.(C) No.26742/2010 was
filed before this Court. This Court directed the respondents to
consider the claim of the persons working on temporary basis,
for regularisation.
6. In terms of the said judgment, Circulars were
issued to Branch Managers to obtain application from
WP(C) Nos.25913 & 28832 of 2011
temporary/daily wage members. The petitioners submitted
applications. However, the respondents proceeded to make
selection without considering the petitioners.
7. The petitioners and similarly situated others
approached this Court and interim orders were passed by this
Court directing the Bank to interview the petitioners as well.
Subsequently, this Court directed to publish the select list. To
the surprise and predicament of the petitioners, their names
were not included in the select list. These writ petitions were
filed under such circumstances.
8. The petitioners would contend that the respondents
have rejected the representations of the petitioners stating
that there is no post of Temporary Messenger and denying the
fact that the Bank had appointed the petitioners. The
petitioners have been doing the work of bundling and stitching
of credit slips also in the Bank.
9. The respondents have a legal duty to consider the
petitioners for regular appointment in the Bank. The action of
the Bank in dispensing with the service of the petitioners is
WP(C) Nos.25913 & 28832 of 2011
unjust and illegal. The respondents cannot go back from the
assurance given by the management. The petitioners belong
to financially poor families and have been rendered age over.
The respondents are therefore compellable to include the
names of the petitioners also in the select list of Temporary
Messengers/Office Attendants (multi purpose), contended the
petitioners.
10. The respondents defended the writ petitions filing
counter affidavits. The respondents stated that the petitioners
were engaged for carrying out sweeping work. The duration
of sweeping work is less than one hour. There was no post of
Temporary Messenger in the Bank and the petitioners were
not appointed against any post. When services of regular
Messengers were not available in Branches, the Branch
Managers might have engaged persons purely on daily wage
basis. It is only an arrangement made at the Branch level and
the does not amount to appointment to the services of the
Bank.
WP(C) Nos.25913 & 28832 of 2011
11. The respondents stated that the names of the
petitioners were not included in the merit list since they were
not found suitable for selection by the Selection Committee.
The petitioners have not challenged the select list. The
petitioners are not entitled to any preference for appointment
to Group C posts in the Bank by virtue of their engagement by
respective Branch Manages.
12. A perusal of the pleadings in the writ petitions
would show that there is absence of any material in proof of
the appointment of the petitioners. The argument of the
petitioners is that there was discussion between the
management and Unions and the management had agreed to
consider the claims of the persons like the petitioners for
regular appointment. A perusal of the writ petition would show
that there is no evidence whatsoever to show that the
management has given any offer or assurance in this regard
to the petitioners or their Union. Ext.P1 document produced
by the petitioners cannot be treated as one giving any
assurance or commitment by the Bank authorities.
WP(C) Nos.25913 & 28832 of 2011
13. It is discernible from the pleadings that the
petitioners might have been engaged by Branch Managers for
sweeping work. They might have also engaged for other work
in the Bank in the absence of regular workers by the Branch
Managers, purely at a local level. Such engagement cannot
be treated as temporary appointment to the Bank. The
petitioners cannot stake any claim for regular appointment or
continued appointment on that basis.
In the circumstances, this Court finds no merits to
interfere in the selection process resorted to by the
respondents and to direct the respondents to include the
name of the petitioners also in the select list. The writ
petitions lack merit and are hence dismissed.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/08.03.2021
WP(C) Nos.25913 & 28832 of 2011
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25913/2011
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE CO-
ORDINATION COMMITTEE DATED 2.4.2009
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED
IN FAVOUR TO SRI. SHAJI KUMAR, A
SIMILARLY PLACE PERSON TO THAT OF THE
PETITIONERS, BY THE BANK DATED
20/10/2010
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPIES OF THE INTERIM ORDERS
ISSUED IN W.P.(C) NO.33487 OF 2010
EXHIBIT P3 (A) TRUE COPIES OF THE INTERIM ORDERS
ISSUED IN W.P.(C) NO.36619 OF 2010
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPIES OF THE INTERIM ORDER
ISSUED IN W.P.(C) NOS. 33487 OF 2010
EXHIBIT P4 (A) TRUE COPIES OF THE INTERIM ORDERS
ISSUED IN W.P.(C) NO.36619 OF 2010
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SELECT LIST PUBLISHED
BY THE BANK
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
PREFERRED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ISSUED
TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 29.8.2011
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED
TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 29/8/2011
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CREDIT SLIP
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED
BY THE MANAGER TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
BANK DATED 26.8.2011
WP(C) Nos.25913 & 28832 of 2011
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE CREDIT/DEBIT SLIPS
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE CHECK ISSUED BY THE
STATE BANK OF TRANVANCORE
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION
NO.1663(E) DATED 13.7.2010
EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LIST.
WP(C) Nos.25913 & 28832 of 2011
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28832/2011
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE CO-
ORDINATION COMMITTEE DATED 02.04.2009.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.
(C) NO.34526 OF 2010.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SELECT LIST PUBLISHED
BY THE BANK.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
29.09.2011 IN W.P.(C) 34526/2010.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED
TO THE PETITIONER DATED 01.09.2011.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CREDIT SLIP.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
29.09.2011 IN W.P.(C) 25913/2011.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION
NO.1663(E) DATED 13.07.2010.
EXHIBIT R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE CANDIDATE APPOINTMENT
LIST.
SR
