United Bank of India Vs. Smt. Anjali Mukherjee and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- surinder singh nijjar, c.j. and indira banerjee, j.1. the application for leave to appeal is granted.re: an appln. for condonation of delay (can 2011/07).2. we have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. considering the averments made in the application we are satisfied that sufficient reasons have been given by the applicant for condoning the delay of 74 days in preferring the appeal. the delay is accordingly condoned. the application for condonation of delay is allowed.re: an appln. for leave to stay (can 2012/2007)3. heard counsel for the parties. by order dated 27th march, 2006 the learned single judge allowed two writ petitions with the following directions:the petitioners' applications for compassionate appointment of the sons of the deceased employees must be considered by the bank under the 1988 scheme. such consideration must be made within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order.on a prayer made by the counsel for the bank the period of four weeks was extended to three months from date.4. pursuant to the aforesaid order, the bank considered the claim of the petitioner soumen mukherjee, who was petitioner no. 2 in the writ petition being w.p. no. 18788 (w)of 2003. the decision was communicated to the aforesaid petitioner on 8th august, 2006 which reads as follows:re: application for appointment in the bank.in response to your above application you were interviewed on 21st july, 2006 by the interview committee constituted for the purpose of considering appointment in the bank in subordinate cadre. you were not found suitable for appointment in the bank by the said interview committee which please note.5. aggrieved by the aforesaid communication the respondents filed a petition for contempt. the contempt petition came up for hearing before the learned single judge who had passed the order on 27th march, 2006. by an order dated 30th november, 2006 the order passed by the bank on 27th august, 2006 has been quashed and set aside. the bank has been directed to reconsider the issue afresh in the light of the observations made by the learned single judge. in the order dated 30th november, 2006 it is observed that the bank did not prefer any appeal against the order dated 27th march, 2006. it is also observed that in purported compliance of the aforesaid order dated 27th march, 2006 the bank took the interview and rejected the claim of the petitioner soumen mukherjee. the learned single judge thereafter, observed that in an identical situation one partha bhattacharyya had been denied appointment after the bank had been asked to re-consider his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. in the aforesaid case of partha bhattacharyya, the division bench had observed that the bank authority in the garb of an interview/conducted a selection process taking a test on arithmetic, writing of applications and consequently rejected his prayer for appointment. since the division bench did not accept the rejection of partha bhattacharyya by the bank he was subsequently given appointment in a group 'd' post pursuant to the directions issued by the division bench for reconsideration of his case. the learned single judge, thereafter, observed that the petitioner soumen mukherjee is agreeable to accept a group 'd' post. no reason has been assigned as to how he could be found us suitable for the post. in view of the above the bank has been directed to reconsider the issue afresh in the light of the observations made above.6. learned counsel mr. majumder appearing for the bank has submitted that whole judgment and order of the learned single judge proceeds on a misconception of the policy of the bank dated 3rd december, 1988. the writ petitioner no. 2 having been interviewed, in accordance with the policy decision, by a duly constituted interview committee be cannot possibly claim that the order of this court has not been complied with. the only obligation imposed on the bank was to consider the claim of the writ petitioner in accordance with the policy dated 3rd december, 1988. the claim of the writ petitioners was duly considered. the writ petitioner no. 2 was not subjected to any written test. he was only interviewed. however, since the learned single judge disposed of the contempt petition without affidavits, the aforesaid facts could not be pleaded before the learned single judge.7. on the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, submits that there is no distinction between the case of soumen mukherjee and the case of partha bhattacharyya. the same interview has been conducted in the case of the writ petitioner no. 2, which has been disapproved by the division bench in the case of partha bhattacharyya. learned counsel further submits that this appeal is not maintainable as the learned single judge has not imposed any punishment on the appellant.8. we have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. we are of the considered opinion that the learned single judge has failed to take into consideration a very relevant clause in the policy dated 3rd december, 1988 which provides as follows:applicant will be interviewed by a selection committee to be appointed by the executive director/general manager in order to assess the suitability of the candidates for a particular post.appointment shall be in the minimum of the grade applicable.9. in our opinion, the aforesaid clause clearly provides that the applicant shall be interviewed by a selection committee in order to assess the suitability of the candidate for a particular post. the policy also provides that the appointment shall be made in the minimum of the grade applicable. furthermore, the policy makes it abundantly clear that it has been introduced for employment of the dependants of the deceased employees who died in harness. there is no provision in the aforesaid policy which would tend to indicate that the clause with regard to interview is applicable only in the case of candidate whe is being considered for appointment in the clerical cadre. in fact the clause with regard to eligibility and qualification appearing on page-2 of the policy clearly lays down that the minimum qualification for appointment in the clerical cadre shall be the same as in the case of general candidates, i.e. the qualifications that are required for appointment in the posts of general clerk, cash-cum-general clerk, typist. typist-cum-clerk, cash clerk, stenographer, machine operator or posts requiring technical qualifications etc. on the other hand, it is provided that for appointment in subordinate cadre minimum qualification for all dependents is class v pass. therefore, it becomes clear that the conditions contained in the policy dated 3rd december, 1988 is applicable to all candidates who are seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, be it in subordinate cadre or clerical cadre. we, therefore, do not accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the clause of interview is limited only to the clerical cadre. we are also satisfied that the writ petitioner no. 2 having been adjudged unsuitable for the post on due consideration the decision to reject his case, cannot constitute contempt of court of the order dated 27th march, 2006 or the subsequent orders. in such circumstances, in case the writ petitioners still aggrieved against the decision dated 8th august, 2006 the remedy would be to file a fresh writ petition challenging the aforesaid order.10. in view of the above, the appeal is allowed treating the same on day's list. the order passed by the learned single judge is set aside. the writ (petitioners shall be at liberty to pursue any oilier remedy that may be available. the application for stay is disposed of.xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned counsel for the parties.