IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2008 / 6TH BHADRA 1930 WA.No. 1553 of 2005(A) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.18869/2003 Dated 24/05/2005 .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3: --------------------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, KERALA CIRCLE, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, S.S. KOVIL ROAD, THAMPANNUR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER. 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, ERNAKULAM MOUDLE,ZONAL OFFICE SHANMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM MODULE, ZONAL OFFICE, L.M.S. COMPOUND,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPAL RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 4 TO 7: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. E.J. VARGHESE, HEAD MESSENGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, KALOOR BRANCH. 2. M.K.VISWANATHAN, DAFEDAR, STATE BANK OF INDIA, PERAMBRA BRANCH, KOZHIKODE. 3. E.VIJAYAN, DUFTRY, STATE BANK OF INDIA, CALICUT GOVT.MEDICAL COLLEGE BRANCH, KOZHIKODE. 4. K.JAYAPRAKASH, DAFEDAR, STATE BANK OF INDIA, KALLAI ROAD BRANCH, KOZHIKODE. WA No. 1553 OF 2005 5. A.P. SUDHAKARAN, DUFTRY, STATE BANK OF INDIA, PALAYAM BRANCH, KOZHIKODE. ADDL. 6. THE STATE BANKS STAFF UNION, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, KERALA CIRCLE, STATE BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, LMS COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.7.11.05 IN IA NO.3044/05) ADDL. 7. K. KARUNAKARAN, HEAD MESSENGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, THALIPARAMBA BRANCH, KANNUR. ADDL. 8. PRASANTHAN P.P., HEAD MESSENGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, KANNUR. ADDL. 9. M.K. RAJENDRAN, HEAD MESSENGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, THALASSERY MAIN BRANCH, KANNUR. (ADDL. R7 TO R9 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.15.2.08 IN IA NO.156/08) BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SRI.M.SASINDRAN FOR ADDL.R6 SRI.M.V.BIPIN FOR ADDL.R7 TO 9 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/08/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 1553 OF 2005 and Cross Objection No. 105 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of August 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy, J. The writ petitioner is working as a Head Messenger in the State Bank of India, (SBI), Kerala Circle. Employees now working under the Kerala Circle were previously part of Chennai Circle. At that time, applications were invited from the employees of the office of the entire circles for selection to the clerical cadre (Record Keeper cum Cashier), by Ext.P1 notification dated 03.02.2000. Written test was conducted and petitioner was one of the eligible persons as can be seen from Ext.P2. Thereafter, Kerala Circle was formed. Interviews were conducted. The petitioner’s name was not mentioned either in Ext.P3 select list or in Exts.P4 and P5, waiting lists. Ext.P4 was prepared for northern area of Kerala Circle, Ernakulam module and Ext.P5 was prepared for southern area of Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram module. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that if it was prepared as a circle wise module, the petitioner would have got promotion. Learned counsel for the bank submitted that for the Chennai Circle there are WA. No. 1553/2005 -:2:- different modules apart from the above and it is submitted that module-wise waiting lists were prepared on the basis of the request of Annexure1, Union’s request. He further argued that the writ petition was filed only in 2003, after the expiry of the list. It is again contended that in 2006 new promotion policy was adopted. The writ petition was allowed by judgment dated 24.05.05 before the new policy came into force. An interim order was issued in the stay petition that one post should be reserved for the petitioner, while making the new appointments. It is stated that no appointments are made so far. Since the writ petition was filed in 2003 and the judgment was passed in 2005, the formation of new policy came between the petitioner’s right if any, cannot be taken away. We are considering the case whether petitioner was entitled to be appointed as per the then existing policy before the expiry of the rank list. According to the respondent list expired on 31.03.03. With regard to the delay, the learned judge noticed that, it is not stated in Exts.P2 to P5 list that the list will expire on a particular day and there was no document to show that the list expired on 31.03.03. 3. According to the petitioner, the test was conducted in November 2000 itself. But after the interview, list were published WA. No. 1553/2005 -:3:- very late and there was formation of the Kerala Circle also. The writ petition was filed on 16.06.03. Therefore, the learned Judge found that in the absence of any statutory rule prescribing the expiry of the list, considering the facts and circumstances of the question of law, petitioner cannot be non suited on the ground of delay. The learned Judge also noticed that even if module wise selection was adopted due to the request of the union, there was no request of the Union to make module wise list for the preparation of a waiting list. Therefore, the respondents are directed to recast Exts.P4 & P5 as a combined list in accordance with the marks obtained by the persons in the list in the order of rank and if the petitioner comes within the zone of consideration, viz, if his rank is above 55, the petitioner will be given promotion to the next arising vacancy. 4. When the matter came up for arguments before us we requested the counsel for the bank to find out whether the petitioner would have been selected if there was a combined list, considering his rank. It is submitted that he would be within rank 55 and if it was a combined list, he would have got appointment before 31.03.03. It is also submitted that difference in salary of the Head Messenger and the Record Keeper is nominal only and thus the monetary benefit is WA. No. 1553/2005 -:4:- very low. On the facts of this case, we are considering the fact that if the list was consolidated, petitioner would have been promoted in 2003 itself and considering the interim order that one post should be reserved for the petitioner, we see no grounds to interfere with the judgment as far as the writ petitioner is concerned and on the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petitioner shall be accommodated in one of the post of Record Keeper in any of the branches in Kerala State. We note that none of the other candidates approached this Court within a reasonable time for getting similar benefit. Therefore we make it clear that no other candidates will be entitled to get this benefit. Appeal is dismissed with the above observation. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE ttb WA. No. 1553/2005 -:5:-