AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Effective date :
As on date of initial engagement
Minimum
Qualification Maximum",,"PROPOSED norms
(AFTER RELAXATION)
No Minimum
,Maximum,"th
10 Standard or Equivalent
Age,Minimum,18 YEARS
,Maximum,"31 years (General)
34 years (OBC)
36 years (SC/ST)
41 years (PWD)
recruitment norms after relaxation as on the date of their first /initial date of engagement in such permanent vacancies. It is hereby agreed that the,,
decision of the Bank about the sufficiency of the proof of such engagement shall be final.â€,,
(emphasis supplied),,
Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to reproduce para-5 of the reply filed by the Bank in the writ petition.",,
“5. That the averments & allegations made in para no.7 of the petition are false & incorrect, hence denied. The respondent Bank conducted the",,
regularization exercise in question strictly according to the policy & norms of the Bank in an impartial & independent manner. The petitioner was not,,
engaged against the permanent vacancy. The persons who were regularized were those who engaged against permanent vacancy on or before,,
30.04.2010. Therefore, the petitioner's case is altogether different from the employees who were regularized and therefore, the petitioner is not",,
entitled for regularization of service.â€,,
(emphasis supplied),,
From a perusal of the MoS annexed to the writ petition, it is apparent that only persons engaged against permanent vacancies were eligible for",,
regularization. The condition was that the employee should have continued to be engaged as on 28th January, 2014 and on the date of the MoS. The",,
regularization was subject to fulfilling of the relaxed norms on the date of initial engagement against a permanent vacancy.,,
The specific stand of the Bank was that the Petitioner was not engaged against a permanent vacancy and only persons engaged against,,
permanent vacancy were to be regularized. The said averment was not rebutted by the Petitioner. No replication was filed, nothing was produced to",,
establish that she was appointed against a permanent vacancy.,,
In the considered view of this Court, the learned Single Judge appears to have erred in read the expression 'who is intermittently engaged by the",,
branches/ offices for cleaning on or after 01.05.2010', occurring in the MoS, in isolation. The said portion is part of the terms of the MoS which have",,
to be read in entirety. The terms of settlement were only for regularizing persons engaged against permanent vacancies. The relaxations of age and,,
educational qualification were for employees who were intermittently engaged on or after 1st May, 2010 against permanent vacancies. In other words,",,
the MoS was not to regularize all the employees engaged on or after 1st May, 2010. Clearly, therefore, the Petitioner did not qualify for regularization.",,
As regards the plea of the Petitioner that two other employees junior to her, and similarly placed, were regularized, it is seen that this averment has",,
been specifically denied by the Bank in its counter affidavit in the writ petition. The Petitioner failed to place any material on record to show to the,,
contrary. Therefore, there is no merit in this contention either.",,
For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned judgment dated 21st May, 2019 of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the appeal is allowed.",,
No costs.,,
Since the appeal has been decided on merits, the application for vacation of stay has been rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such.",,