S.B.I & Ors vs Palak Modi & Anr.Etc

2. In response to an advertisement issued by appellant No.1, which was published on 1.7.2008, the private respondents applied for appointment as Probationary Officers. They appeared in the two-tier examination held by the Bank, which was followed by group discussion and interview. On being declared successful, the private respondents were appointed as Probationary Officers vide letters dated 5.5.2006, paragraph 5 of which reads as under:

3. Vide letter dated 22.12.2010 of Deputy Managing Director and Corporate Development Officer of the Bank, the Probationary Officers of 2009-10 batch were informed that they are due for confirmation on 15.5.2011 and, therefore, they may appear in the test proposed to be conducted on 27.2.2011. Paragraph 2 of that letter which has bearing on the decision of these appeals reads as under:

28. Before concluding, we may notice the judgments relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the appellants. In Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab (supra), this Court considered the question whether the decision of the State Government to terminate the services of the appellants, who were appointed as Executive Officers on probation of one year, could be nullified on the ground of violation of Articles 14 ad 16 of the Constitution. The facts of the case show that the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 was enacted to make provision for the improvement and expansion of towns in Punjab. The Act envisages the creation and constitution of Trusts and the Trust so created will have a corporate personality with perpetual succession and a common seal. The duties and functions of the Trust inter alia include preparing of schemes under the Act for various purposes. Section 17 conferred power on the State Government to constitute certain services in the manner therein prescribed. One such service contemplated by the section was Punjab Service of Trust Executive Officers. Sub-section (2) of Section 17 conferred power on the State Government to make rules for regulating the recruitment and the conditions of service of members of the Trust services constituted by the State Government. Armed with this power, the State Government constituted Punjab Service of Trust Executive Officers. In exercise of the power conferred by Section 73 read with Section 17(2) of the Act, the State Government framed rules styled as Punjab Trust Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1978 (“1978 Rules” for short). Rule 5(2)(i) inter alia provided that 50 per cent of the vacancies in the cadre of Executive Officers shall be filled by direct recruitment and for this purpose Rule 5(4) envisaged the setting up of a Selection Committee called Punjab Trust Services Selection Committee. In 1978, Directorate of Local Government, Punjab issued Advertisement No. 1078 inviting applications for the posts in Class I, II and III of Trust Executive Officers. Pursuant to this advertisement, large number of persons applied for various posts. The Punjab Trust Services Selection Committee interviewed various candidates and ultimately recommended 11 persons for the post of Trust Executive Officers. Ajit Singh and Rajinder Singh were recommended for Class I post; S. Sarup Singh and R.L. Bhagat were recommended for Class II post of Trust Executive Officers and the remaining seven petitioners in this group of petitions were recommended for Class III post of Trust Executive Officers. These recommendations were accepted and appointment orders were issued by Punjab Government on May 28, 1979. After each appointee completed one year of service, an increment was released in his favour. After one year, the State Government terminated their services vide orders dated 25.9.1980. One of the several grounds on which the appellants challenged the termination of their services was that the action of the employer was wholly arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of equality clause contained in the Constitution. While quashing orders dated 25.9.1980, this Court observed:

8. Excluding the pair mentioned above, the statistical and corroborative evidences are against the remaining 18 candidates, we propose to

ii) Extend their probation for a period of 3 months.

iii) All these officers in terms of their appointment are on probation for 2 years from their date of joining and provisions of SBIOSR 1992 are applicable to them. Provisions of Rule 16 (1, 2 and 3) (Annexure-VI) of SBIOSR enable the Appointing Authority to terminate the services of involved officers during the probation period in such cases without going through disciplinary proceedings. Legal opinion obtained in this regard in similar cases in an earlier examination is enclosed (Annexure-VII).

10. Accordingly, we recommend:

iii) Probation period of 59 candidates (60-1 candidate involved in copying), who have failed to secure 50% i.e. 100 out of 200 (for SC/ST/PWD 45% i.e. 90 out of 200), be extended by 6 months. They will be subjected to confirmation re-test within the extended period of probation in terms of the extant policy (Annexure-I).

iv) 19 candidates (Annexure-I) were absent in the confirmation written test, are not suitable for their confirmation as JMGS-I. Circles have advised the reasons for their absence in the test. Subject to verification by the Circles, the probation period of eligible candidates is to be extended by a further period of 6 months and they will be subjected to confirmation re-test within the extended period of probation.

4. 2 candidates, as per Annexure “C", who scored less than 50% (less than 45% for SC/ST/PWD) marks, are not eligible for confirmation at this stage and their probation will be extended for a period of 6 months.

They will have to appear for confirmation re-test, which will be scheduled during the extended period of probation. In the event of any candidate failing in the re-test, his/her services will be terminated in terms of offer of appointment letter.

7. Accordingly, in respect of 2 candidates of the above batch of Probationary Officers (2009-10 batch), who could not qualify in the confirmation test conducted on 27-02-2011, and 2 candidates who have been found suspected to have indulged in copying will have to be served letters on the lines of draft letters (Annexure-E & F) and their acknowledgement will have to be obtained. We, therefore, propose to deliver letters (placed below for your signature) to these 4 candidates. Further, we also propose to confirm 96 candidates (Annexure "B" ) as officer JMGS-I w.e.f. 15.05.2011 or upon completion of two years probation from the date of their joining the Bank in terms of Rule 16(1) of State Bank of India Officers Service Rules.

5. We, therefore, propose subject to your approval, to initiate necessary action against these 02 Probationary Officers for termination of their services at the earliest. Upon approval we will draft a letter for termination of their services and forward the same to Corporate Centre for vetting. Upon receipt of advices from Corporate Centre, we will put up the termination letter, to be served to these 02 POs, for your signature. The appropriate authority in the matter is Appointing Authority, i.e., senior most General Manager of the Circle.

Submitted for approval.

23. It is thus evident that satisfactory performance during the period of probation, successful completion of training(s) and passing of the test conducted by the Bank for judging his suitability for the post constitute the touchstone for his confirmation.

34. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. The appellants shall reinstate the private respondents within 15 days of the production of copy of this judgment before respondent No.3 and give them all consequential benefits like pay, allowances, etc. within next one month. However, it is made clear that this judgment shall not preclude the competent authority from taking fresh decision in the matter of confirmation of the private respondents after giving them effective opportunity of hearing against the allegation of use of unfair means in the test held on 27.2.2011.