WPs 5839/11 & 4677/11 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5839/2011 Deshmukh Deepali Shamsunder & five others. ...Petitioners.. Versus The State of Maharashtra & two others. ...Respondents... =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= WRIT PETITION NO.4677/2011 Jeevan Ramsingh Rajput & 34 others. ...Petitioners... Versus The State of Maharashtra & two others. ...Respondents.. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ..... Smt. A.N. Ansari, Advocate for petitioners. In WP 4677/11, name of petitioner no.36 is deleted as per Court’s order today. Shri V.H. Dighe, AGP for respondent no.1. Shri P.M. Shah, Senior Counsel with Shri D.L. Vakil, Advocate for respondent no.2. Shri S.R. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no.3. CORAM: D.B. BHOSALE & S.B. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE: 11.08.2011 WPs 5839/11 & 4677/11 - 2 - PER COURT : 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] In these two writ petitions, the petitioners are seeking direction to respondent no.3 to permanently absorb them in the Junior Management Grade Scale-I, as per the policy of the parent bank i.e. respondent no.2. Such prayer is made on the basis of the proposal that was submitted by respondent no.3 to respondent no.2 vide their letter dated 31.12.2010 for seeking approval to absorb the employees, such as the petitioners, who were / are appointed on contract basis for a period of two years. 3] Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset invited our attention to the letter dated 31.12.2010 and submitted that in view of the policy reflected in the said letter, the petitioners are entitled to be absorbed as prayed for in the writ petitions. The relevant portion of the letter reads thus: “ We have recruited 105 OMR (R)s by visiting various campuses of Agricultural Colleges in Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Karnataka on contract basis at an annual package of Rs.2.00 lacs in June 2000. As on date 76 OMR (R)s are working at various rural branches and the rest of them have resigned seeking better opportunities elsewhere. Our Bank is experiencing acute shortage of staff at the branches and most of the branch functionaries are engrossed in WPs 5839/11 & 4677/11 - 3 - their day to day routine. It is taking a lot on the marketing efforts of the Branch as and also affecting the recovery and follow up of advances. Even though we have placed our indent with CRPD for recruitment of 300 POs (Rural Business) on 09.12.2010 CRPD yet to release the advertisement. In order to strengthen the marketing efforts at the Branches we propose to absorb the existing OMR (R)s in the Bank in JMGS – I Cadre under Specialist Cadre. The Executive Committee at its meeting held on 22.12.2010 has accorded approval for absorption of OMR (R)s into regular scale in JMGS – I under Specialist Cadre subject to clearance from Corporate Centre, State Bank of India. In this regard, we request you to accord approval for absorption of OMR (R)s into regular scale in JMGS – I under Specialist Cadre as was done in State Bank of India.” This letter was replied by the State Bank of India vide letter dated 18.7.2011. The reply thus reads: “SBI had, as a one time measure and as a very special case, absorbed the Officers taken on contract basis as permanent officers in the Bank. Government of India has raised certain issues in this matter. Considering all aspects we are not in favour of you absorbing the officers taken on contract basis, as permanent officers.” 4] In view of the reply, learned counsel for respondent no.3 submitted that they have decided not to absorb the petitioners into regular scale in JMGS-I under WPs 5839/11 & 4677/11 - 4 - specialist cadre. 5] From bare perusal of the aforesaid letters, it is clear that there is no policy as such to absorb the persons like the petitioners on the basis of which they can claim absorption as of right. The respondents also deny existence of any such policy on the basis of which the petitioners can be absorbed. There is no dispute that the petitioners were not selected in the regular selection drive and that they were appointed on the basis of campus interviews conducted by respondent no.3. In other words, for appointing the petitioners, no procedure as contemplated by the Rules called State Bank of Hyderabad Officers Marketing & Recoveries (Rural) Service and Conduct Rules (for short “the Rules”) was followed. This has not been disputed by the petitioners. We have perused the letter of appointment issued in favour of one of the petitioners dated 14.8.2009 (Exhibit R-5). This letter clearly mentions that their appointments were made on contract basis for a period of two years. The letter further states that they would not be entitled to any benefits or perks, which are payable to regular employees of the bank or to superannuation benefits. They were appointed on a fixed salary, which is described in the letter of appointment as compensation package, all inclusive of Rs.2.00 lacs per annum. Thus, there is no dispute that their appointments were on contract basis for a period of two years. Rules 4.1 and 4.2 of the Rules make it clear that the appointment of officers Marketing & Recovery will be purely contractual in nature for a period of two years and the officers so appointed will not WPs 5839/11 & 4677/11 - 5 - be entitled or stake any claim including any claim for employment, permanent or temporary. It further states that the contract is liable to be terminated automatically on expiry of the contract period. It is, thus, clear that the petitioners cannot claim as of right permanency and/or absorption as prayed for in the writ petitions. Hence, the writ petitions are dismissed. Dismissal of these petitions, however, shall not preclude respondent no.3 from considering the petitioners for appointments either on contract basis or on permanent basis, whenever they decide to make appointments in future. (S.B. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.B. BHOSALE, J.) ndk/c1181117