Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

W.P. No. 12169 of 2011 and MP Nos. 1 & 2 of 2011

Advocates

Mr. Balan Haridas
Mr. P.D Audikesavalu Standing Counsel

Judges

D. Krishnakumar, J.

Acts

Recovery (Rural) Services and Conduct Rules, 2004,
ARTICLE 226 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
India Act, 1955.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Court Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner challenged an order dated 31.12.2010 (ref. No. HR:RC:3007) issued by the 3rd respondent (State Bank of India) by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought quashing of that order and a direction that the Bank absorb her as Officer - Marketing & Recovery (Rural) on a permanent basis with back wages, continuity of service and consequential benefits.

Facts as presented in the petition: the petitioner had been working on contract as an Officer - Marketing & Recovery (Rural) (OMR) from 02.01.2009. She was selected pursuant to the Bank's recruitment policy and the State Bank of India Officers - Marketing & Recovery (Rural) Service and Conduct Rules, 2004 (rules framed under the State Bank of India Act, 1955). The Rules provided for contract appointments (Rule 4) and a promotion/career path to grades S1, S2 and S3 (Rule 7). The petitioner alleged that despite good performance and assurances, the Bank did not make her permanent or promote her, and instead issued advertisements for direct recruitment to S1 grade and subsequently discharged her effective 01.01.2011.

Respondents' factual and procedural account: the petitioner was a two-year contract appointee (02.01.2009 to 01.01.2011) whose contract was not renewed. The Bank relied on a policy approved by its Executive Committee on 14.07.2010 providing for permanent absorption of OMRs in service as on 14.07.2010 subject to achieving minimum 60% targets for 2009-2010. A batch of similar writ petitions was filed; one related writ (W.P. No. 7431 of 2010) was disposed of on 25.10.2010 with liberty to pursue individual claims. The Bank produced an RBU letter dated 18.11.2011 identifying 29 OMRs recommended for absorption; the petitioner was not listed because, after application of the revised evaluation matrix, she had not met the 60% threshold (revised score 51.73%). The Court had earlier directed review of the petitioners' cases by order dated 17.12.2012 and disposed some matters where petitioners met revised norms by order dated 22.03.2013; the present petition remained for further hearing.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the impugned discharge order dated 31.12.2010 dismissing the petitioner from contractual employment should be quashed.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to permanent absorption as an Officer - Marketing & Recovery (Rural) under the Bank's Rules and the policy/circulars (including the Executive Committee policy dated 14.07.2010 and Circular No. RB/AC/SB/121 dated 18.08.2010), having regard to the achievement of the required performance targets.
Whether the respondents applied the revised evaluation norms required by the Corporate Centre (circular dated 18.08.2010) and properly considered the petitioner's eligibility (including any material the petitioner may produce) before passing the impugned order.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner was duly selected and served as an OMR on contract from 02.01.2009 under the Bank's Service and Conduct Rules, 2004 and the selections were made as per the Bank's policy and statutory authority under the State Bank of India Act, 1955.
The Rules (effective 06.09.2004) and subsequent decisions/circulars contemplated contractual appointments that could be confirmed as permanent depending on performance; the Bank had earlier decided to confirm contract officers based on performance (Central Board decision dated 20.04.2006).
The petitioner alleged assurances (oral) of continuation and absorption, and relied on branch-level letters dated 27.07.2010 and 20.12.2010 asserting higher achievement (70.85%), which, if accepted, would entitle her to absorption by analogy to other similarly placed OMRs.
The petitioner contended the Bank's advertisements for direct recruitment to S1 grade (6.6.2009 and later 20.1.2010) were inconsistent with the promotion scheme under Rule 7 of the 2004 Rules.

Respondents' Arguments

The petitioner was a contract appointee for a fixed period (02.01.2009 to 01.01.2011) and her contract term ended on 01.01.2011 and was not renewed.
The Bank adopted a policy on 14.07.2010 for permanent absorption of OMRs in service as on that date subject to achieving 60% of prescribed targets for 2009-2010; the petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria.
In response to a court direction and production demands, the Bank produced an RBU letter dated 18.11.2011 listing 29 OMRs recommended for absorption; the petitioner was not included because, after applying a revised evaluation matrix, her revised performance was 51.73%, below the 60% threshold.
The branch-level letters relied upon by the petitioner (alleging higher achievement) were denied by the respondents on factual verification — the Bank's official records did not show receipt of such letters at the Regional Business Office and did not support the asserted higher business volume.
The Bank submitted that the Competent Authority had considered and passed orders and that the petitioner had not met the revised norms and therefore could not claim absorption.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analyzed the matter primarily as one of procedural fairness and adequacy of consideration of the petitioner's entitlement under the Bank's rules and the Corporate Centre's revised norms.

The Court observed that entitlement to absorption depended on achieving the requisite targets after applying the revised norms set out in Corporate Centre Circular No. RB/AC/SB/121 dated 18.08.2010 (referred to in the opinion). The petitioner had produced materials in support of her claim which required examination by the Competent Authority.
On perusal of the impugned discharge order dated 31.12.2010, the Court found nothing on its face to indicate whether respondents had examined the petitioner's eligibility in the context of the revised business-target norms (specifically, whether the respondents had applied para 2(b) of Circular No. RB/AC/SB/121 dated 18.08.2010).
The Court noted comparative treatment: similarly placed OMRs (about 28) initially found ineligible were later found to have achieved targets after application of the revised norms and were absorbed. This demonstrated that re-evaluation under the revised norms could alter eligibility outcomes.
In light of the above, and without expressing any opinion on the substantive merits of the petitioner's claim, the Court concluded that a fresh consideration was necessary. It therefore quashed the impugned discharge order to enable the Competent Authority to examine the petitioner's case, consider the newly proffered materials, give the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a reasoned order applying the relevant circular and norms.
The Court prescribed a procedural timetable: the petitioner may make a fresh representation within two weeks of receiving the Court's order; the Competent Authority shall consider that representation, provide an opportunity for hearing, and pass reasoned orders in accordance with law and the Corporate Centre circular within 12 weeks of receipt of the representation.
The Court further directed that if the petitioner is found entitled to permanent absorption, the other benefits enjoyed by similarly placed OMRs absorbed earlier would be extended to her.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The Writ Petition is allowed on the terms set out by the Court, and the impugned order dated 31.12.2010 is quashed. The petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh representation and the respondents' Competent Authority is directed to reconsider and pass a reasoned order in accordance with the Corporate Centre circular and revised norms within the timeline specified by the Court.

Implications

Direct effect: The impugned discharge order of 31.12.2010 against the petitioner has been quashed and the petitioner is given an opportunity to seek reconsideration; the Competent Authority must reassess her eligibility applying the revised norms and provide a reasoned decision within the timeframe directed by the Court.
Remedial consequences: If upon reconsideration the petitioner is found entitled to permanent absorption, she is to be granted the same benefits (monetary and non-monetary) as other similarly placed OMRs who were absorbed earlier.
Precedential or broader implications: The opinion does not state or purport to create any new legal precedent; it directs reconsideration on the facts and application of the Bank's internal circulars and norms. No broader legal principle beyond directing fresh, reasoned consideration in accordance with the applicable circular and rules is pronounced in the text.

Order: Writ Petition allowed on the terms stated. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Show full summary ...

P. Sudha Petitioner v. State Of Bank Of India Rep. By Its Chairman Corporate Centre, State Bank Bhavan, Madame Cama Road, Mumbai - 400 021.

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, after calling for the concerned records from the 3rd respondent, quash the order of the 3 respondent dated 31.12.2010 bearing ref. No. HR:RC:3007 and consequently direct the respondent Bank to absorb the petitioner as Officer - Marketing & Recovery (Rural) on permanent basis with backwages, continuity of service and all consequential monetary and non-monetary benefits.

D. Krishnakumar, J.:— The petition has been filed praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, after calling for the concerned records from the 3 respondent, quash the order of the 3 respondent dated 31.12.2010 bearing ref. No. HR:RC:3007 and consequently direct the respondent Bank to absorb the petitioner as Officer - Marketing & Recovery (Rural) on permanent basis with backwages, continuity of service and all consequential monetary and non-monetary benefits.

2. Heard Mr. Balan Haridas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P.D Audikesavalu, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-Bank.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as Marketing and Recovery Officer (Rural) on contract basis with the respondent State Bank of India from 02.01.2009 The petitioner was duly selected by the Bank as per the policy approved by the Central Board of the Bank and governed by the Officer-Marketing & Recovery (Rural) Service and conduct Rules, 2004 framed by the Bank in exercise of its statutory powers under the State Bank of India Act, 1955. As per the said Rules, the appointments were made after an open advertisement and a selection process comprising of an oral interview and on selection of the best among those who possessed the eligibility criteria. The first advertisement for recruiting such officers was issued in May 2004. The petitioner was initially called Marketing & Recovery Officer (MRO) - Farm Sector and later from 2006, the Bank changed their designations to Officer-Marketing & Recovery (OMR) - Rural. In the year 2006-2008, the Bank issued advertisement again and the most meritorious candidates were recruited through the same selection process. The petitioner was one of the candidates selected and appointed in the selection process held during the year 2008. A high eligibility criteria was uniformly prescribed for such recruitment.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the State Bank of India Officers-Marketing & Recovery (Rural) Service and conduct Rules, which were framed by the Bank with effect from 06.09.2004, are made applicable to the petitioner and persons recruited like the petitioner. Rule 4 therein envisaged the appointment of Officers-Marketing & Recovery (Rural) for a contractual period renewable depending on the performance and the State Bank of India's discretion and need. Rule 7 there in set out the career path as follows:

GradeMinimum Service Eligibility CriteriaOMR - RURAL - S13 years as OMR - RURALOME - RURAL - S24 years as OMR - RURAL-S1OMR - RURAL - S34 years as OMR - RURAL - S2

5. As per the rules and terms and conditions of service, on showing performance of the newly recruited contract officers, the Management of the Bank decided to confirm them as permanent officers. Such a decision was taken by the Central Board of the Bank held on 20.04.2006 Therefore, the decision for confirming the petitioner was purely based on their excellent performance for which a survey was earlier conducted by the Corporate Centre in 2006 - 2007.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that as per the Rules, the petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion to S1, S2 and S3 Grades on completion of 3 years or 4 years service, respectively. However, the Bank did not pass any orders of promotion to S1, S2 or S3. Contract appointees like the petitioner were becoming restive and started leaving the Bank's services. The Bank issued a circular dated 08.10.2007 on the subject of career path and compensation package for Officers - Marketing & Recovery (Rural) and Technical Officers (Farm Sector). Thereafter, the aforesaid Rules were also circulated to all the Branch Heads to inform them of their service conditions and roles and responsibilities. The petitioner has represented for her permanent absorption, but she was orally assured that her services will be continued and absorbed.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that in spite of the aforesaid Circular and the Rules, the Bank had failed to implement its commitments, assurances and the aforesaid statutory Rules. With increased reports of excellent performance results from the Agri Business Units, the Bank finally proposed to appoint permanent “Officers Rural Business” (ORB), which should be State specific. A letter dated 15.5.2009 of the Bank in this regard was sent by the Chief General Manager (Rural Business). The petitioner was orally assured of the said post. However, this was also not implemented. Further, without giving the petitioner promotions to S1, S2 & S3 or making her permanent, the Bank suddenly came up with a totally illegal advertisement dated 6.6.2009 for direct recruitment to S1 grade of Officers - Marketing & Recovery (Rural) and Technical Officers (Farm Sector) again on contractual basis. The said recruitment was against the State Bank of India Officers - Marketing & Recovery (Rural) Services and Conduct Rules, 2004, as per which S1 grade is a promotion grade with a prescribed selection process based on the performance of officers like the petitioner, as set out in Rule 7. At this stage, the respondent-Bank issued advertisement dated 20.1.2010 for recruitment of Probationary Officers, (General as well as for Rural Business). Subsequently, the 3 respondent had issued the termination order dated 31.12.2010 to the petitioner, stating that the petitioner was discharged from the Bank with effect from 01.01.2011 the petitioner need not attend office from 02.01.2011 Hence, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

8. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submit that Petitioner was appointed on contract basis as Officer - Marketing & Recovery (Rural) (hereinafter referred to as ‘OMR' for brevity) in State Bank of India for a period of two years from 02.01.2009 to 01.01.2011 The period of contract came to an end on 01.01.2011 and had not been renewed. In the meanwhile, a Writ Petition bearing W.P No. 7431 of 2010 was filed in this Court by State Bank of India Contract Officers' Welfare Association (in which the Petitioner claims to be a member) impeaching an advertisement dated 30.01.2010 issued by State Bank of India for recruitment of Probationary Officers (Rural Business) from open market and for consequential direction to appoint existing Officers - Marketing & Recovery (Rural) (including the Petitioner) as permanent officers. During the pendency of that Writ Petition, the Executive Committee of the Central Board of State Bank of India in the meeting held on 14.07.2010 approved a policy for permanent absorption of Officers - Marketing & Recovery (Rural), who are in the services of the bank as on 14.07.2010 subject to having achieved minimum 60% targets during the year 2009-2010. Recording the said subsequent development, this Court by order dated 25.10.2010 disposed the Writ Petition (W.P No. 7431 of 2010) with liberty to the members of State Bank of India Contract Officers' Welfare Association to agitate individual cases of non-absorption if necessity arises by initiating appropriate separate proceeding. According to the Respondents, since the Petitioner had not fulfilled the terms and conditions stipulated for permanent absorption, she could not be considered for permanent absorption and by a letter of discharge dated 31.12.2010, she was requested not to attend office from 02.01.2011 onwards and was relieved from the contractual employment. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition bearing W.P No. 12169 of 2011 impugning the order of discharge from service dated 31.12.2010 Similar Writ Petitions were filed by 38 other OMRs and all the cases were grouped together as a batch for common hearing.

9. The learned Standing Counsel would submit that the Counsel appearing for the Petitioner had by notice dated 03.10.2012 addressed to the Counsel for the Respondents required the Respondents to produce, inter alia, the letter dated 18.11.2011 bearing RBU/SPR/OMR/207 written by its Rural Business Unit wherein it had been mentioned that 29 OMRs who have not been absorbed are fully eligible for absorption meeting out the parameters and the instructions received from the Corporate Office. In pursuance thereof, the Respondents had on 29.11.2012 produced the said letter dated 18.11.2011 before this Court. However, the name of the Petitioner does not find place in the list of 29 OMRs who had been recommended for absorption in the said letter dated 18.11.2011 The Petitioner had been found to be not eligible for absorption based on the revised evaluation matrix received from her controller since she did not achieve 60% of the business and recovery target set out for her. After the production of the aforesaid letter dated 18.11.2011, this Court by order dated 17.12.2012 directed the Respondents to review the case of all the Petitioners in the batch including the Petitioner herein for permanent absorption as per the recommendations made by the Deputy General Manager (Rural Business Unit) vide proceedings dated 18.11.2011 and in light of the revised norms set out in the circular dated 18.08.2010 issued by the Corporate Centre of the Respondents.

10. The learned Standing Counsel would further submit that in compliance of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the Competent Authority of the Respondent reviewed the cases of all the 39 Petitioners (including the Petitioner herein) in the light of the revised norms set out in the circular dated 18.08.2010 issued by the Corporate Centre of the Respondent and it had been found that even after applying the revised norms, the Petitioner, who had secured only 39.13% in the original performance, had not been found to be eligible for absorption due to her inadequate revised performance of 51.73% as against the required 60% for absorption. This Court by order dated 22.03.2013 in WP Nos. 9894 of 2011 etc., disposed of 28 Writ Petitions in the batch recording the Report filed by the Respondents that the Petitioners in those cases would be absorbed in service as they had achieved the target as per the revised norms and there was no other impediment in that regard. The remaining Writ Petitions including the present case were posted for further hearing and disposal.

11. The Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank would further submit that the respondent-Bank has considered and passed orders and that the petitioner has not reached the target as per the revised norms and hence, cannot claim any absorption in service. In this regard, the petitioner, during the hearing, relied on the letters dated 27.07.2010 and 20.12.2010 issued by the Branch Manager, Regional Business Office, Salem, wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner had achieved a higher target of 70.85%. Therefore, in the light of the order passed by this Court in WP Nos. 9894 of 2011 etc., dated 22.02.2013, the petitioner is entitled to be absorbed as permanent employee in the respondent Bank. To which, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that on factual verification it has been ascertained that no such letters had been actually received at the Regional Business Office, Salem and that the official records of the Bank relating to the performance of the Nangavalli Branch, do not indicate that the petitioner had obtained such higher volume of business during the relevant period and resultantly, the said letters cannot be of any avail.

12. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent-Bank and perused the materials placed before this Court. With regard to the claim of the petitioner for absorption in service, it solely depends on the achievement of the target by applying the revised norms, and the petitioner has now placed the materials in support of her claim, which would have been examined by the Competent Authority and the concerned authority has to pass orders on the claim made by the petitioner. On a perusal of the impugned order dated 31.12.2010, there is nothing on the face of that order to indicate as to whether the respondents had examined the eligibility of the Petitioner for extending the benefit of revising the business targets for the purpose of measuring the achievement stipulated for permanent absorption in service in terms of para 2(b) of the Circular No. RB/AC/SB/121 dated 18.08.2010 issued by the Corporate Centre of the Respondent.

13. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that similarly placed OMRs, numbering about 28 who had been initially found to be ineligible for continuation in service, were later found to have achieved their target by applying the revised norms stipulated by the Corporate Centre of the Respondent and were considered by the respondent, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims, the impugned order passed by the 3 respondent dated 31.12.2010 is quashed and the petitioner is permitted to make fresh representation with relevant materials to the 3 respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and the Competent Authority of the respondents shall consider the claim of the petitioner and give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass reasoned order, in the light of the above said Circular issued by the Corporate Centre of the respondents and pass appropriate orders, on merits in accordance with law, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the said representation from the petitioner. It is needless to add here that in the event of the Petitioner being found to be entitled for permanent absorption in service, other benefits as applicable to other similarly placed OMRs absorbed in service in terms of the relevant orders of the Respondent, shall be extended to the petitioner.

14. The Writ Petition is allowed on the aforesaid terms. No costs. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

P. Sudha Petitioner v. State Of Bank Of Ind...