IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL No.3579 OF 2015 (S-REG) BETWEEN:
GIRISHA H M SON OF MAHADEVAPPA, OFFICER-MARKETING AND RECOVERY (RURAL) STATE BANK OF MYSORE REGIONAL OFFICE, HASSAN-573 201. DISTRICT HASSAN.
....APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRACHAR M, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE CHAIRMAN STATE BANK OF INDIA, CORPORATE CENTRE, STATE BANK BHAVAN, NARIMAN POINT, MADAME CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI-400 021.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND GROUP EXECUTIVE (ASSOCIATES AND SUBSIDIARIES) STATE BANK OF INDIA, CORPORATE CENTRE, STATE BANK BHAVAN, NARIMAN POINT MADAME CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI-400 021.
3. THE GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, CENTRAL RECRUITMENT AND PROMOTION DEPARTMENT, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400 021.
4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR STATE BANK OF MYSORE, HEAD OFFICE, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.
5. THE GENERAL MANAGER (OPERATION) STATE BANK OF MYSORE, PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT, HEAD OFFICE, BENGALURU-560 009.
....RESPONDENTS (BY R-1 TO R-3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED SRI. HARSHITH V, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. K SUBHA ANANTHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 AND R-5) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 25747 OF 2015 DATED 23.07.2015.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ASHOK S KINAGI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 23.07.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.25747 of 2015 has filed this writ appeal.
For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred to in the writ petition.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 30.08.2006 the respondent-bank issued an advertisement inviting the application for the post of Technical Officer Farm Sector and Marketing & Recovery Officer for its associated banks. According to the advertisement, the appointment was to be on contractual basis. Since the petitioner was eligible for the said post, he applied for the same. By order dated 18.07.2007, the petitioner was appointed on the said post for a contractual period of two years. When his contractual period was about to end, by order dated 07.07.2009, his contract was extended for a period of three years i.e., from 18.07.2009 to 17.07.2012. On 20.07.2010, the Executive Committee of State Bank of India approved the policy for permanent absorption of the persons working on the said post. The contractual period of the petitioner came to an end on 17.07.2012. The respondents have not extended the contractual period. The petitioner gave a representation for absorption on 24.07.2010 and the same was forwarded to the DGM and the DGM has written to AGM Region-II, stating that the bank is not in favour of extending the contractual period of the petitioner vide letter dated 08.12.2014. Hence, the petitioner filed the writ petition.
3. The respondents filed statement of objections contending that Circular dated 20.07.2010 referred to by the petitioner is pertaining to the approved policy regarding providing opportunity for permanent absorption to officers appointed on contract basis in State Bank of India. The precondition for absorption is that the officers would have been on the rolls of State Bank of India as on 14.07.2010 subject to having achieved minimum 60% target during the year 2009-10. This policy is only pertaining to State Bank of India and is not applicable to the petitioner as he is working on contract basis in State Bank of Mysore. It is further contended that the petitioner is estopped from claiming benefit of absorption based on the circular dated 20.07.2010, which is not applicable to State Bank of Mysore. It is further contended that the petitioner is governed by the terms and conditions of the contract that he has entered into with State Bank of Mysore and he has no locus standi to claim absorption as he was appointed on contract basis and the contract period came to an end and further it was not extended.
4. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed statement of objections contending that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis and the contract period was not extended. It is further contended that the term of the contractual employee may be extended, if there is any further requirement of such officers. However, on review on the requirement for contract employees appointed, a decision was taken not to extend the services of the contract employees, as there is no requirement of a specialist officer for Marketing & Recovery Officer – Farm Sector in the bank. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. The learned single Judge after considering the material on record held that the petitioner being appointed on contract basis he has no right to claim that he should be absorbed. The learned single Judge has observed that, petitioner’s matter was referred by SBM to the Finance Ministry for its opinion, considering the fact that by letter dated 10.12.2013, the Finance Ministry has clearly directed that “on expiry of the contract, the officer on contractual basis will not have any right to get permanently absorbed in the Bank’s service and the bank need not regularize their services.” It is further observed that this Court cannot direct the bank to violate the directions issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India and consequently, dismissed the petition.
6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis, before accepting the appointment order the petitioner was well aware that he was appointed on contract basis and the said term of contract came to an end after the expiry period mentioned in the appointment order. Accepting the terms and conditions of the contract, now the petitioner cannot go back and say that terms and conditions imposed by the respondents at the time of appointment is illegal. The petitioner is estopped to contend that terms and conditions of the appointment are illegal. The petitioner submitted a representation for absorption and the respondents have forwarded his recommendation to the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. The Ministry of Finance, Government of India has clearly directed the banks not to absorb the officers who were appointed on contractual basis and not to regularize their service. The petitioner’s initial appointment is on contractual basis and it was purely temporary for a period of two years with a rider for any reason it would not be made permanent. The right to regularization of a person on a purely contractual basis would depend on express or implied terms of the contract appointment. In the instant case, as per Annexure-B, it is made clear by the respondents that appointment in the bank is on a contract basis for a specified period and the petitioner having accepted the terms and conditions, merely because he was worked continuously for a period more than 8 years, such continuance to the post cannot confer any right to continuance or regularization. Successive extensions of temporary appointment does not give rise to legitimate expectation of regularization. The right to regularization of a person on a purely contractual basis would depend on express or implied terms of the contract as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF ORISSA VS CHANDRA SEKHAR MISHRA reported in (2002) 10 SCC 583. Para 4 of the said judgment which is relevant reads as under:
“4. In our opinion, there were two fundamental errors in that relief being granted to the respondent. Firstly, the services of the respondent were terminated with effect from 31.1.1978 and the respondent did not approach the Tribunal within the period of limitation provided by the statute. On this
respondent was appointed on 1-2-1972 on contract basis for a period of three years. This period of contract was extended upto 31-1- 1978. When the respondent was only a contractual employee, there could be no question of his being granted the relief of being directed to be appointed as a regular employee.”
8. In view of the above decision, the petitioner is not entitled for regularization. The learned single Judge after considering the entire material on record has rightly dismissed the writ petition. We do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE MBS