Sher Singh vs State of Rajasthan and Another

Govind Mathur, J.—As a consequent to his regular selection, an appointment was accorded to the petitioner as Class IV employee with respondent, the Pali Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Pali. The appointment initially was on probation for a term of two years and that came to be confirmed under an order dated 21.08.1995 passed by the Managing Director of the respondent Bank.

The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, while exercising powers under Rule 41 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 1966, approved criteria to be adopted for selection on the post of clerks/ cashier with cooperative banks and as per that a person who has put in five years of service after regular selection as Class IV employee in Central Cooperative Bank/APEX Bank is eligible to be considered for selection subject to possession of at least Higher Secondary School Examination certificate from the recognized Board/University. Suffice to mention here that in the cadre of clerks/cashier, appointment against 50% of total posts, is required to be made by way of promotion.

The petitioner, who is having qualification of Graduation, became eligible to be considered for promotion by way of selection to the post of clerk/cashier on completion of five years of service, however, the respondents under a notification dated 30.07.1998 initiated process for making appointments by way of direct recruitment without considering candidature of any Class IV employee for promotion. A representation was submitted by the petitioner demanding consideration of his candidature for promotion, but of no consequence, hence, this petition for writ is preferred.

The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that as per existing provisions, the respondent Bank was under obligation to fill-in 50% of existing posts in the cadre of clerks/cashiers by way of promotion, but for no just and valid reason, such appointments by way of promotion are made.

In reply to the writ petition, the respondent Bank has admitted existence of the avenues for promotion to Class IV employees, but only reason for not making such promotion given is that the only candidate who possessed requisite qualification is the petitioner, but he is not eligible to be considered for promotion being lacking requisite service. As per the respondent Bank, though the petitioner was appointed on 05.12.1992, but he was confirmed as Class IV employee on 22.08.1995, therefore, he is not eligible to be considered for appointment against the vacancies occurring prior to 22.08.2000.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Precisely, the question under consideration is that, whether appointment of the petitioner on 05.12.1992 was regular one or not; or in other words whether the services rendered by the petitioner from 05.12.1992 to 21.08.1995 is required to be considered as regular service or not?

As per the respondents, regular service commences only after its confirmation. The term "regular service" is not defined under the relevant rules, as such, it is to be determined as per its general meaning. In normal course, engagement of a person to discharge specific work for hire or reward is "service" and "regular service" is such engagement as per accepted, applicable and fair norms.

In the present case, appointment of the petitioner was made as Class IV employee as a consequent to a process of selection made as per rules. True it is, he was kept on probation for a term of two years, but such placement in no way strip off him from the status of regular employee. Placement of a person on probation is a mode to assess and watch capability, efficiency and general conduct of an employee, otherwise a probationer selected by way of regular process of selection for all means, stands at same pedestal, where the other confirmed employees stands. A person employed by regular means in substantive capacity is nothing but a regular employee.

The petitioner for all purposes is a regular employee of the respondent Bank since 05.12.1992 and as such, he became eligible to be considered for promotion for the post of clerk/cashier after 05.12.1997. The respondent Bank should have considered candidature of the petitioner for making promotion against the vacancies relating to promotion quota occurred on or after 05.12.1997.

For the reasons mentioned above, this petition for writ succeeds and, therefore, the same is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider candidature of the petitioner for the purpose of appointment as per Rules against the vacancies of clerks/cashier occurred on or after 05.12.1997. The process of consideration in the terms above is required to be made within a period of six months from today and if the petitioner is otherwise found suitable for promotion, same be accorded to him in accordance with law.