[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
G.Thirukalyanamalar vs State Bank Of India on 23 January, 2026
W.P.No.18835 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.P.No.18835 of 2013
G.Thirukalyanamalar
W/o.shri.V.S.Vishwanath ... Petitioner
vs.
1. State Bank of India
Rep. By its General Manager
Local Head Office, 16, College Lane,
Chennai-6.
2. State Bank of India
Rep. By its Deputy General Manager (B&O)
Administrative Office, Madurai Zone,
Madurai. … Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records from the
first respondent bearing Ref.No.HR:RC:1031 dated 28.06.2013, quash the
same and consequently, direct the respondents to treat the petitioner in
service but for the order dated 28.06.2013, with all benefits including wages
from 01.07.2013 with continuity of service, attendant and consequential
benefits.
Page Nos.1/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:56:08 pm )
W.P.No.18835 of 2013
For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Ramesh
Senior Advocate
for Mr.V.Subramani
For Respondents : Mr.C.Mohan
Ms.A.Rexy Josephine Mary
for M/s.King and Partridge (Law Firm)
*****
ORDER
The petitioner, a registered Tamil Sri Lankan refugee, is before this
Court challenging the order dated 28.06.2013 passed by the first respondent,
by which her services in the respondent Bank were terminated.
2. The facts of the case:
2.1. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 01.10.2007 and the
notification dated 17.12.2007 issued by the respondent Bank, applications
were invited for appointment to the post of Officer-Marketing and Recovery
(Rural). The petitioner, claiming that she possessed the requisite
qualifications and eligibility, submitted her application for the said post.
Upon consideration, the petitioner was found suitable and an order of
appointment was issued in her favour on 05.04.2008.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:56:08 pm )
2.2. The Respondent contends that petitioner was appointed as
Officer-Marketing and Recovery on a contractual basis for a period of two
years from 31.03.2008 to 30.03.2010. During the subsistence of her
contractual employment, the State Bank of India Contract Officers’ Welfare
Association filed a writ petition in W.P.No.7431 of 2010 seeking absorption
of the contract employees as permanent employees. The petitioner claims
to be a member of the said Association. When the said writ petition was
pending, the State Bank of India issued an advertisement dated 30.01.2010
for recruitment of Probationary Officers (Rural Business) from the open
market and for consequential appointment of existing officers – Marketing
& Recovery (Rural) including the petitioner as permanent officers.
2.3. Subsequently, the Executive Committee of the Central Board of
State Bank of India, in its meeting held on 14.07.2010, approved a policy for
permanent absorption of officers – Marketing & Recovery (Rural), who
were in service of the Bank as on that date subject to the condition that they
had achieved a minimum of 60% of the prescribed targets during the year
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:56:08 pm )
2009 – 2010. Recording the said subsequent development, the aforesaid
writ petition was disposed of on 25.10.2010 granting liberty to the members
of the SBI Contract Officers Welfare Association to agitate their individual
cases for non-absorption, if the need arises.
2.4. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner’s name was included in the final
list of selected candidates. However, during scrutiny of the documents and
certificates submitted by the petitioner, the respondent Bank noticed that the
petitioner is a Sri Lankan National. It was found that she did not fulfill the
primary eligibility requirement under the advertisement dated 01.10.2007,
which mandated Indian Citizenship for appointment to the post of Officer –
Marketing and Recovery (Rural). Consequently, the respondent Bank took a
decision to terminate the petitioner from service and the same was effected
by the impugned order dated 28.06.2013. Aggrieved by the impugned order,
the present writ petition has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:56:08 pm )
3. Submissions on behalf of the petitioner:
3.1. Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner, submitted that owing to ethnic conflict prevailing in Sri Lanka
at the relevant point of time, the petitioner along with her parents fled to the
State of Tamil Nadu in the year 1990. It was contended that the petitioner is
of Indian Origin by birth.
3.2. It was therefore contended that, for all the practical purposes, the
petitioner has been extended rights and benefits akin to those enjoyed by
Indian Citizens. Merely on the ground that the petitioner is a Sri Lankan
Tamil refugee, she cannot be deprived of her valuable right to employment
in the respondent Bank. Such denial, according to the learned Senior
Counsel, would be antithetical to the concept of equality enshrined under
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3.3. It was further submitted that the petitioner’s grandparents were
born in India and subsequently migrated to and settled in Sri Lanka.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:56:08 pm )
Therefore, the petitioner is of Indian origin by birth and cannot be
discriminated against solely on the ground that she has not formally acquired
Indian citizenship, despite having taken refuge in India and having been
residing here legally ever since.
4. Submissions on behalf of the respondent Bank:
4.1. Per contra, Mr.C.Mohan, learned counsel of M/s.King and
Partridge (Law Firm) on behalf of respondents - Bank, submitted that the
advertisement dated 01.10.2007 explicitly invited applications only from
Indian Citizens. The petitioner, despite being a Sri Lankan national and not
an Indian Citizen, suppressed this material fact and applied for the post,
pursuant to which she obtained an order of appointment fraudulently.
4.2. It was contended that since the petitioner did not fulfill the basic
eligibility condition relating to nationality, the termination of her services
from the respondent Bank cannot be said to be arbitrary and discriminatory.
The respondent Bank, upon discovering the ineligibility during verification
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:56:08 pm )
of records, was justified in terminating her services.
4.3. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner, not
being an Indian citizen, has no locus standi to maintain the present writ
petition as the invocation of fundamental rights under the Constitution of
India is available only to citizens of this Country. On this ground also, the
learned counsel sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the
respondents placed reliance on the following decisions:
(i) Dulu Deka Vs. State of Assam and others [2023] 9 SCC 749;
(ii) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others Vs. Ram Ratan
Yadav [2003] 3 SCC 437;
(iii) Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank and another Vs. Anit
Kumar Das [2021] 12 SCC 80;
(iv) State Bank of India Vs. A.G.D. Reddy [2023] SCC OnLine SC
1064;
(v) Order dated 08.10.2014 passed in W.P.No.18373 of 2008
[Gnanaprakasam Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:56:08 pm )
6. The arguments advanced by learned counsel on either side and
materials available on record have been duly considered.
7. Before delving into the merits of the case, it is imperative to first
examine the locus standi of the petitioner to maintain this writ petition.
8. A plain reading of Article 226 of the Constitution of India makes it
abundantly clear that the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, is
empowered to issue writs, orders, or directions to any person, authority, or
Government not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed
under part III of the Constitution of India, but also “for any other purpose”.
Articles 12 to 35 contained in Part III of the Constitution define and
guarantee Fundamental Rights. While certain rights, particularly those
under Articles 16 & 19, are expressly available only to Citizens, other
fundamental rights such as the right to equality, Protection from
Exploitation, Freedom of Religion, Culture and Educational rights are
guaranteed to “all persons” and not merely to citizens.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:56:08 pm )
9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Louis De Raedt Vs. Union
of India [1991] 3 SCC 554, authoritatively held that although a foreign
national does not enjoy the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19,
the protection of Article 21 of the Constitution extends to all persons,
including non-citizens and foreigners. The Apex Court unequivocally
recognized that a foreigner is entitled to challenge the State action which
adversely affects his life or personal liberty, subject only to procedure
established by law.
10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Human
Rights Commission Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh [1996] 1 SCC 742,
held that refugees, though not citizens of India, are entitled to the full
protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was further held
that the State is under a constitutional obligation to safeguard the life and
liberty of every human being, irrespective of nationality. The Apex Court
further recognized that refugees have the locus standi to invoke
constitutional remedies when subjected to arbitrary, unreasonable or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:56:08 pm )
unlawful State action. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions clearly
establishes that citizenship is immaterial for the purpose of invoking writ
jurisdiction. So long as the impugned action affects or infringes the rights
guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, a non-
citizen, including a refugee, is entitled to seek redressal under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
11. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the respondent
Bank on the decision of Hon’ble Division Bench of the Bombay High Court
in Stelmakh Leonid Iuliia Vs. Secretary to the Ministry of External
Affairs, Mumbai and another 2011 (1) Mh.L.J 893. In the said decision,
the Hon’ble Division Bench held that Article 16 of the Constitution of India,
which guarantees equality of opportunity in matters relating to public
employment, is confined exclusively to citizens of India, and a non-citizen
cannot invoke Article 16 in any manner whatsoever. The Hon’ble Division
Bench, while arriving at the said conclusion, placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chairman, Railway Board and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:56:08 pm )
Others Vs. Mrs.Chandrima Das and Others, AIR 2000 SC 988. In the said
decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that Article 14 of the
Constitution, which guarantees equality before law or the equal protection of
laws within the territory of India, is applicable to “persons” which would
also include the “citizen” of the Country and “non-citizen” both. However,
the Hon’ble Apex Court also drew a clear constitutional distinction by
observing that Article 15 of the Constitution of India speaks only of
“citizen” and it is specifically provided therein that there shall be no
discrimination against any “citizens” on the ground of religion, race, caste,
sex, place of birth or any of them. Likewise, in Chairman, Railway Board
and Others Vs. Mrs.Chandrima Das and Others, it was reiterated that the
word “citizen” used in Article 19 has not been used in a sense different from
that in which it has been used in Part II of the Constitution dealing with
“citizenship”. It has also been held in this case that the words “all citizens”
have been deliberately used to keep out all “non-citizens” which would
include “aliens” and Article 19 was held to be applicable only to “citizens”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:56:08 pm )
12. From a conspectus of the legal principles laid down in the
aforesaid decisions, the following propositions emerge:
(a) A non-citizen cannot invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court for
enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed exclusively to citizens under
Articles 15, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India;
(b) However, where the State action is alleged to be arbitrary,
unreasonable discriminatory and results in violation of the rights guaranteed
under Articles 14 and / or 21 of the Constitution of India, a non-citizen is
entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court;
(c) In the present case, though the petitioner is admittedly a non-
citizen, she has challenged the action of the respondent Bank terminating her
services solely on the ground that she is not a citizen of this Country,
contending that such action is arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:56:08 pm )
(d) Therefore, when the challenge is founded on an allegation of
discrimination and arbitrariness attracting Article 14 of the Constitution of
India, the captioned writ petition is held to be maintainable. Consequently,
the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent Bank with
regard to maintainability is misplaced and cannot be accepted.
13. Before proceeding to examine whether the petitioner is entitled to
appointment or continuation in service in the respondent Bank, it becomes
necessary to advert to the relevant provisions of the Citizenship Act,
Immigration and Foreigners Act, the Immigration laws in force and the
scheme governing Sri Lankan refugees.
14. The Director of Rehabilitation, Government of Tamil Nadu, has
formulated various schemes for the rehabilitation of Sri Lankan Tamil
refugees, under which refugees are provided with food, shelter, monthly
financial assistance, and other basic amenities (copy downloaded from the
official website). In addition, free bus passes are issued to students pursuing
education in Arts, Science, and Engineering Colleges; business and housing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:56:08 pm )
loans are extended; and employment opportunities are provided in certain
Corporations and Plantations. Refugees are also permitted to leave the
camps between sunrise and sunset to seek employment commensurate with
their skills.
15. Section 3 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, deals with
the requirement of passport or other travel document and visa. The said
provision mandates that no person proceeding from any place outside India
shall enter, or attempt to enter India by air, water or land unless he is in
possession of a valid passport or other travel document. In the case of a
foreigner, possession of a valid visa is also mandatory. It further stipulates
that any foreigner present in India shall continue to possess a valid passport
or other valid travel document and a valid visa, unless exempted under
Section 33 or through intergovernmental agreements.
16. Section 33 of the Act 2025 empowers the Central Government to
declare that all or any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule or order
made there under shall not apply, or shall apply only in such circumstances
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:56:08 pm )
or with such exceptions or modifications in relation to the citizens or classes
of citizens of any such Country as may be so specified or to any other
individual foreigner or class of description of foreigner.
17. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 33 of the Act
2025, the Central Government enacted the Immigration and Foreigners
(Exemption) Order 2025. Section 3 of Order 2025 deals with exemptions.
Sub-section (2) of Section 3 specifically provides that the provisions
contained in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 3 of the Act 2025,
insofar as they relate to the requirement of possession of a passport and visa
for stay in India and for the purpose of exiting India, shall not apply to
registered Sri Lankan Tamil nationals, who have taken shelter in India upto
the 9th January 2015.
18. Thus, the aforesaid exemption expressly excludes the application
of Section 3 of the Act 2025, which otherwise mandates compulsory
possession of a valid passport and visa for a foreigner to reside in India.
Consequently, the residence of the petitioner who is a registered Srilankan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:56:08 pm )
Tamil Refugee in this Country cannot be characterized as illegal. On the
contrary, her stay stands regularized and protected by virtue of Section 3 of
Order 2025, who admittedly is a registered Sri Lankan Tamil national.
19. Insofar as the provisions of Citizenship Act are concerned, the
same need not be adverted to in detail, as no material has been produced to
substantiate that the petitioner has acquired Indian citizenship either by
registration, naturalization or descent.
20. In the light of the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the
petitioner has been conferred with a lawful right of residence in India. The
rehabilitation scheme formulated for Sri Lankan Tamil refugees also extends
benefits such as shelter, education and employment in India, particularly in
the State of Tamil Nadu.
21. The petitioner, having entered into India in the year 1990 at the
age of 5, has pursued and completed her education within the State of Tamil
Nadu. She has been awarded educational qualifications duly recognized by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:56:08 pm )
the competent authorities of the State. It is true that the appointment
notification issued by the respondent Bank stipulated that the applications
were invited only from Indian citizens. However in the application
submitted by the petitioner, she had clearly disclosed that her place of birth
was Columbo, Sri Lanka. Significantly, the application form did not contain
any specific column requiring disclosure of citizenship or nationality. In the
absence of such a column, no adverse inference can be drawn against the
petitioner for non-disclosure of her nationality or citizenship.
22. No doubt, the respondent Bank has the right to restrict non-
citizens from applying for the post. However, in the circumstances of the
present case, the petitioner was appointed pursuant to the recruitment
notification and in compliance with the interim order of this Court, and has
continued in service uninterruptedly from 2008 till date. At this stage, the
respondent Bank cannot seek to terminate her services, as such action would
be arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory, offending the principles of
fairness and equality, and would defeat the petitioner’s legitimate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:56:08 pm )
expectation arising from long and continuous service. Such termination
would also result in depriving the petitioner of her only source of livelihood.
23. The Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances and Pensions, has issued the Handbook on Personnel Officers,
1987. Chapter VII of the said Handbook deals with the appointment of non-
Indian nationals. As per Chapter VII, which sets out the standard rules for
recruitment to posts under the Government of India, a candidate for
appointment to any Central Service or post must be a citizen of India, or a
subject of Nepal, or a subject of Bhutan, or a Tibetan refugee who came over
to India before 1st January 1962 with the intention of permanently settling in
India, or a person of Indian origin who has migrated from Pakistan, Burma,
Sri Lanka, East African countries, etc., with the intention of permanently
settling in India, provided that a candidate belonging to any of the above
categories other than a citizen of India shall be a person in whose favour a
certificate of eligibility has been issued by the Government of India.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:56:08 pm )
24. It is further provided that candidates belonging to the above
categories, other than citizens of India, shall not be eligible for appointment
to the Indian Foreign Service. Therefore, under the Handbook on Personnel
Officers, 1987, there is no bar for a person of Indian origin who has
migrated from Sri Lanka with the intention of permanently settling in India
from seeking appointment to posts under the Government of India, subject to
the issuance of a certificate of eligibility by the Government of India.
25. Regulation 4 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment
by Competitive Examination) Regulations, 1955 deals with the conditions of
eligibility to compete in the examination and provides that, to be eligible, a
candidate must be a citizen of India or must belong to such categories of
persons as may, from time to time, be notified in this behalf by the Central
Government. Similar provisions are also incorporated in Regulation 4 of the
Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Competitive Examination)
Regulations, 1967. Therefore, there is no absolute statutory bar to
appointment to the IAS or IFS, subject to the Central Government issuing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:56:08 pm )
the requisite notification.
26. The petitioner applied for the post under the bona fide belief that
the recruitment was open to all eligible persons. Even assuming that the
petitioner was aware that she was not an Indian citizen at the time of
applying, she cannot be terminated from service at this stage in the absence
of any statutory provision or service regulation expressly prohibiting the
appointment of non-citizens to the post in the respondent Bank more
particularly in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
27. The petitioner was initially appointed in the year 2008 and has
continued in service till date. At the time of admission of the present writ
petition, this Court granted an interim order directing maintenance of status
quo, and the said interim order continues to remain in force even as of today.
By virtue of the said order, the petitioner has been uninterruptedly
discharging her duties with the respondent Bank.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:56:08 pm )
28. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that, during the course
of her service, she has been granted incentives for achieving prescribed
targets and for her overall performance, thereby demonstrating her
suitability and efficiency in the post held by her.
29. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner is
married to an Indian citizen and that two children born from the said
wedlock are Indian citizens. The petitioner, having rendered more than 17
years as of today, if now discharged from service, would be subjected to
irreparable loss and grave hardship. Such termination would not only
deprive her of her means of livelihood but would also adversely affect the
welfare and future of her children.
30. Merely because the recruitment advertisement stipulated that
applications were invited only from Indian citizens, the same cannot, by
itself, constitute a valid ground for termination of services, particularly when
the petitioner was initially appointed without any demur, is not an illegal
immigrant, and her residence in India stands regularized by virtue of Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:56:08 pm )
3 of the Order of 2025. The petitioner is extended all benefits available to
Indian citizens, except such privileges and fundamental rights as are
specifically reserved for citizens under Articles 16 and 19 of the
Constitution of India.
31. Therefore, the action of the respondent Bank in terminating the
petitioner’s services solely on the ground that she is not a citizen of this
Court is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. The impugned order of termination is thus,
unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside.
32. This Court has not examined the validity of the power of the
respondent Bank to restrict appointments exclusively to Indian citizens and
to exclude registered Sri Lankan Tamils whose stay in India is legalised and
who are permitted to seek employment commensurate with their
qualifications, as the validity of such restriction has not been challenged in
the present writ petition. This order is passed in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case and shall not be treated as a precedent. The right
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:56:08 pm )
of the respondent Bank to restrict employment to Indian citizens is left open
and has not been adjudicated.
33. Accordingly, the captioned Writ Petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 28.06.2013 is hereby quashed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
23.01.2026
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Speaking / Non-speaking
mk
To
1. State Bank of India
Rep. By its General Manager
Local Head Office, 16, College Lane,
Chennai-6.
2. State Bank of India
Rep. By its Deputy General Manager (B&O)
Administrative Office, Madurai Zone,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:56:08 pm )
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,
mk
23.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 02:56:08 pm )
