IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33290 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHAM LAL.J.C, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.JAYAPALAN, SHAM NIVAS, BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.JAGAN GEORGE SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD SRI.P.G.PRAMOD SRI.KANDAMPULLY RAHUL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, RURAL BUSINESS, STATE BANK OF INDIA, CORPORATE CENTRE, MUMBAI-400 021. 2. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, S.S.KOVIL ROAD, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV.P.V.SURENDRANATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.33290 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 4th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T In recognition of his qualifications, the petitioner was recruited as an Officer-Marketing and Recovery (Rural) in the 1st respondent bank on contract basis. The petitioner claims that while working so, he had achieved 200% realization of the target, whereas, the minimum target achievement fixed was only 60%. He was hoping that in recognition of his exemplary work, he would be regularly absorbed in service. But even after years of waiting, no order came. The petitioner decided to resign and seek better pastures. But he could not find any. Later, he came to understand that the respondents decided to absorb all Officers-Marketing and Recovery (Rural), in service. According to the petitioner, there are still further vacancies and the respondents are in need of such officers. Therefore, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 representation before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 expeditiously. 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the bank submits that the decision of the bank was to absorb all persons who have achieved the target fixed, in service as on the date of the decision to absorb and since the petitioner was not in the service of w.p.c.33290/10 2 the bank as on that date, the petitioner is not entitled to absorption. He also submits that a similar writ petition filed by a similarly placed person has already been dismissed by this Court. 3. I am not inclined to go into the merits of the contentions of the parties, insofar as Ext.P4 is still pending before the 2nd respondent. In the above circumstances, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge