W.A. Nos. 423, 425 and 460 of 2023

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **& THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR** **MONDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 18TH POUSHA, 1945** **WA NO.423 OF 2023 JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 34526/2010 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 22.12.2022** **------------------** ## **- APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS :** 1 NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, N.M.G.TOWERS, POST PALLIKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT – 670 004 NOW KERALA GRAMIN BANK (AS PER NOTIFICATION NO. S.O 2074(E) DATED 08/07/2013 ISSUED BY THE UNION OF INDIA) HEAD OFFICE AT MALAPPURAM 2 THE CHAIRMAN NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, N.M.G.TOWERS, POST PALLIKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT – 670 004 NOW KERALA GRAMIN BANK (AS PER NOTIFICATION NO. S.O 2074(E) DATED 08/07/2013 ISSUED BY THE UNION OF INDIA) HEAD OFFICE AT MALAPPURAM. BY ADVS. K.M.ANEESH K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM) ADARSH KUMAR SHASHANK DEVAN ## **- RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONERS :** 1 ELDHOSE M.P NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, KOOTHATTUKULAM, PIN – 686 662 2 BEENA.P NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK AREA OFFICE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682 025 3 GEETHA.E.V NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK CHERUKUNNUR EXTENSION COUNTER, PIN – 673 655 W.A. Nos.423, 425 and 460 of 2023 -: 2 :- 4 RAJANI.K.P NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK PARAPPA, PIN – 671 533 5 ANITHA NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK KANHANGAD BRANCH, KASARAGOD, PIN – 671 315 6 NISHA.C.N NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK ULIKKAL BRANCH, PIN – 670 705 BY ADV P.C.SASIDHARAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.12.2023, ALONG WITH WA.Nos.425/2023 & 460/2023, THE COURT ON 08.01.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A. Nos.423, 425 and 460 of 2023 -: 3 :- **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR MONDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 18TH POUSHA, 1945** **WA NO.425 OF 2023 JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 35722/2010 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 22.12.2022** **--------------------** ## **- APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS :** 1 NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, N.M.G.TOWERS, ROST PALLIKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT – 670 004 NOW KERALA GRAMIN BANK (AS PER NOTIFICATION NO. S.O 2074(E) DATED 8-07-2013 ISSUED BY UNION OF INDIA) HAVING HEAD OFFICE AT MALAPPURAM 2 THE CHAIRMAN NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, NMG TOWERS, POST PALLIKKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT – 670 004 NOW KERALA GRAMIN BANK (AS PER NOTIFICATION NO. S.O 2074(E) DATED 8-07-2013 ISSUED BY UNION OF INDIA) HAVING HEAD OFFICE AT MALAPPURAM BY ADVS. K.M.ANEESH SHASHANK DEVAN ADARSH KUMAR K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM) ## **- RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER :** RANJITH K. MESSENGER (TEMPORARY) NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, PADIYUR KALLIAD BRANCH, PIN – 670 703 BY ADV P.C.SASIDHARAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.12.2023, ALONG WITH WA.Nos.423/2023 & 460/2023, THE COURT ON 08.01.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A. Nos.423, 425 and 460 of 2023 -: 4 :- **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR MONDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 18TH POUSHA, 1945** **WA NO.460 OF 2023 JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 33487/2010 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 22.12.2022** **----------------------** **- APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 :** 1 NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, N.M.G.TOWERS, POST PALLIKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670 004 [NOW KERALA GRAMIN BANK (AS PER NOTIFICATION NO. S.O.2074(E) DATED 08/07/2013 ISSUED BY THE UNION OF INDIA) HAVING HEAD OFFICE AT MALAPPURAM 2 THE CHAIRMAN NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, N.M.G.TOWERS, POST PALLIKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670 004 [NOW KERALA GRAMIN BANK (AS PER NOTIFICATION NO. S.O.2074(E) DATED 08/07/2013 ISSUED BY THE UNION OF INDIA) HAVING HEAD OFFICE AT MALAPPURAM] BY ADVS. SHASHANK DEVAN K.M.ANEESH K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM) ADARSH KUMAR ## **- RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONERS AND 3RD ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT :** 1 KRISHNARAJA H. NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, MADHOOR BRANCH, KASARAGOD, PIN – 671 124 2 SUNITHA. A NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, MEEYAPADAVE BRANCH, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN – 671 323 W.A. Nos.423, 425 and 460 of 2023 -: 5 :- 3 SHAJIKUMAR.O. NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, TRIKADARIPOIL BRANCH, KANNUR, PIN – 670 701 4 BINU.R NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, KATTANAM BRANCH, ALAPPUZA, PIN – 690 503 5 ACHUTHA BHAT.V.R NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK CHERTHALA BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 688 524 6 JOHNSON.P. NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK HEAD OFFICE, KANNUR, PIN – 670 001 7 MANOJ.T.M NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, ALAPPUZHA BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 688 001 8 REEJA.M.P NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, CHAMPAD BRANCH, KANNUR, PIN – 670 694 9 RAJEESH.K.V NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, KARETTA BRANCH, KANNUR, PIN – 670 702 10 SHEEBA.B.S NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, PARAL BRANCH, KANNUR, PIN – 670 671 11 BEENA.P NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, KUNHIMANGALAM BRANCH, PIN – 670 307 12 CHARLE THOMAS NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, KURUPPANTHARA, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686 603 13 SARAFULLA.T NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, KOTTARAKKARA BRANCH, KOLLAM, PIN – 691 506 14 SHAJU J.VARGHESE NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 690 101 W.A. Nos.423, 425 and 460 of 2023 -: 6 :- 15 K.P.RENNY NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, PALA BRANCH, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686 574 16 BINDHU RAJEEVAN NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, RAMAPURAM BRANCH, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686 576 17 JEGAN.P.DAS NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, MANNAR BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 689 622 18 SURESHKUMAR.A.S NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, ANCHAL, KOLLAM, PIN – 691 306 19 REMA.V NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, EDANEER BRANCH, KASARAGOD, PIN – 671 541 20 K.SARITHA NORTH MALALAR GRAMIN BANK, KANNUR MAIN BRANCH, KANNUR, PIN – 670 001 21 ABHIJITH.M NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 689 622 22 MANOJ KUMAR.M NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, THILLANKERRI, KANNUR, PIN – 670 702 23 SANATH KUMAR NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, WEST PONNIAM, KANNUR, PIN – 670 001 24 MAHILA.P.R NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, KADAVANTHARA BRANCH, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 020 25 SUDEEPAN.V NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, KANNADIPARAMBU, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670 604 26 KERALA GRAMIN BANK EMPLOYEES UNION CENTRAL OFFICE, DILEEP MUKHERJI BHAVAN, PERINTHALMANNA ROAD, UPHLL, MALAPPURAM - 676 505. W.A. Nos.423, 425 and 460 of 2023 -: 7 :- REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, BIGESH UNNIYAN AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.LATE BHASKARAN MULLOLI, MULLOLI HOUSE, AZHIKKAL P.O, KANNUR – 670 009 WORKING AS OFFICE ASSISTANT, KERALA GRAMIN BANK, G-A WING, HEAD OFFICE, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676 505 BY ADVS. JAYASREE K.P. JOHN JOSEPH(K/000875/2019) SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.12.2023, ALONG WITH WA.Nos.423/2023 & 425/2023, THE COURT ON 08.01.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A. Nos.423, 425 and 460 of 2023 -: 8 :- **ANU SIVARAMAN, J. & C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J. -----------------------------------------------------------------W.A. Nos.423, 425 and 460 of 2023 -----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 8[th] day of January, 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anu Sivaraman, J.** Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in these appeals. These appeals are preferred as against the common judgment of the learned Single Judge directing the appellants to regularise the service of the writ petitioners as messengers and to disburse all consequential benefits to them. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the respondents in the writ appeals were persons who were not eligible for appointment or for regularisation. It is submitted that the appointments had been made on the basis of a recruitment notice for appointment to the post of messengercum-sweeper in the Bank. It is contended that the appointments were to be made through the Employment Exchange. Further, there was a specific age limit provided for appointment and the applicants should have been between the age of 18 and 26 years as on the last date for submission of the W.A. Nos.423, 425 and 460 of 2023 -: 9 :- application. It is contended that the qualification prescribed for appointment was pass in SSLC and the respondents did not have the said educational qualification either. 3. It is submitted that Rule 10 of the Regional Rural Bank (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2010 specifically provides that post of Group-C employees in Regional Rural Banks shall be filled up after making a reference to the Employment Exchange, Sainik Board or other agencies catering to the welfare of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Physically Challenged Persons or other special category of persons as are recognised by the Central Government or the State Government having jurisdiction over the Regional Rural Bank. It is further contended that the fact that the party respondents were working on daily wage basis in the Bank would not make them entitle to claim any benefit or preference in the matter of appointment. It is submitted that when the writ petitions came up for consideration, the learned Single Judge passed an interim order directing the respondents to interview the petitioners provisionally subject to the result of the writ petitions. Subsequently, by another interim order W.A. Nos.423, 425 and 460 of 2023 -: 10 :- dated 6.5.2011, the respondent Bank was directed to declare the results of the petitioners. Thereafter, when the writ petitions again came up for consideration on 29.9.2011, the learned Single Judge passed the following order :- “As per interim order dated 8.12.2010, the petitioners were also permitted to be provisionally interviewed for appointment to the post of Full Time Messenger to the North Malabar Gramin Bank. Accordingly, they were interviewed. As per interim order dated 6.5.2011, the 1[st] respondent Bank was directed to declare the results of the petitioners and to consider them also for appointment as Messengers. Sufficient numbers of posts as are required to accommodate such persons were also directed to be kept vacant until further orders. Accordingly, on declaration of the results, 29 persons were found eligible to be appointed as Messengers in the service of the Bank. Since the vacancies reserved for appointment of such persons are remaining unfilled, there shall be a further direction to the 1[st] respondent Bank to provisionally appoint them to the posts kept vacant as per the interim order dated 6.5.2011. It is made clear that such appointments shall be provisional and subject to the result of these writ petitions.” It is submitted that thereafter, though attempts at mediation were made, the matter could not be settled. Finally, by judgment dated 22.12.2022, the learned Single Judge, after considering the fact that the writ petitioners were in service in W.A. Nos.423, 425 and 460 of 2023 -: 11 :- the Bank for long periods even before filing of the writ petitions and that they had been appointed pursuant to interim orders and had continued for more than ten years thereafter, directed their regularisation in the post of messenger. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the appointment on the basis of the interim order dated 29.9.2011 being purely provisional and subject to result of the writ petitions, in the absence of findings that the party respondents were entitled to age relaxation and relaxation in the matter of educational qualifications, there could not have been any direction to regularise them. It is further contended that the party respondents were not persons who were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and therefore, they could not have been appointed. Further, it is contended that the post of Messenger-cum-sweeper, which was available in the 1998 Rules has been re-designated as Office Attendant in the 2010 Rules and the post of Office Attendant is a Group-C post. It is, therefore, contended that since the appointment of GroupC posts is to be made by direct recruitment, the party respondents could have no claim. A decision of this Court in **Hameshdas K.H. and others** v. **State of Kerala and others** W.A. Nos.423, 425 and 460 of 2023 -: 12 :- [2021 KHC 295] is relied on in support of the said contention. It is further contended that even though the learned Single Judge had referred to the judgment dated 17.8.2017 in W.P.(C) No.32912/2010, the same was not properly considered while passing the judgment. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents, on the other hand, contended that Rule 10 of the 2010 Rules only provides that appointments to Group-C posts are to be made after making a reference to the Employment Exchange as also other authorities as specified therein. There is no specific provision that the appointments have to be made through the Employment Exchanges alone. The decision of the Apex Court in **Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P.** v. **K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and others** [1996 KHC 1527], wherein it has been held, considering the provisions of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 also, that restricting selection only to candidates sponsored by Employment Exchanges is not proper and that equality of opportunity in the matter of employment is to be made available to all eligible candidates. Further reliance is placed on the decisions in **State** W.A. Nos.423, 425 and 460 of 2023 -: 13 :- **of Karnataka and others** v. **M.L.Kesari and others** [2010 KHC 4530] and in **Narendra Kumar Tiwari and others** v. **State of Jharkhand and others** [2018 KHC 6555] to contend that the decision in **Secretary, State of Karnataka and others** v. **Umadevi and others** [(2006) 4 SCC 1] applies only to backdoor appointments and that the party respondents who have undergone a proper process of selection and had been directed to be appointed provisionally by interim orders of this Court cannot be equated with the persons who have been appointed without undergoing any selection process at all. It is further contended that the claim of the petitioners in the writ petitions was only for consideration of their claim for appointment along with the persons who had applied pursuant to the notification and that their claim is only for appointment and benefits at par with other persons who were appointed in the same selection process. 6. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that Rule 10 of the Regional Rural Bank (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2010 relied on by the appellants does not specifically provide that appointments are to be made exclusively through the W.A. Nos.423, 425 and 460 of 2023 ## -: 14 :- Employment Exchange alone. It only provides that reference has to be made to the Employment Exchanges as well. The party respondents were admittedly persons who were working in the Bank as on the date when the notification was issued. This Court had directed the consideration of their claims as well, apparently in view of the fact that they were eligible for appointment in accordance with the unamended Rules which were in force as on the date of their engagement. The party respondents were interviewed and those of them who were found eligible were included in the select list. Thereafter, by interim order dated 29.9.2011, they were directed to be appointed provisionally. Though the appointment was to be provisional and subject to result of the writ petitions, it is clear that no action had been taken to have the writ petitions heard or to terminate the provisional appointments for 11 long years thereafter. The contention of the appellants is that the appointments are to be made by direct recruitment. Suffice to say that the party respondents who were working in the Bank have also been subjected to the same procedure for appointment as in the case of the persons who had been sponsored through the Employment Exchange. W.A. Nos.423, 425 and 460 of 2023 -: 15 :- 7. In the facts of the instant case, we are of the opinion that the contention raised by the appellants that the party respondents were ineligible to apply for appointment to the post could not have been raised after acquiescing to their provisional appointment and suffering the same for long 11 years. This apparently is the reason which weighed with the learned Single Judge also for directing the regularisation of their services. However, in view of the fact that the prayer in the writ petitions was specifically only for consideration of the claim of the petitioners for appointment in the direct recruitment which was being conducted by the Bank, we are of the opinion that the direction for regularisation of service from any earlier date was unsupported by pleadings and materials on record. In the above view of the matter, we allow these appeals to the limited extent of directing that the appointment of the party respondents shall be in terms of the direct recruitment made pursuant to the selection in which they participated and they shall be appointed in the post for which selection was held. They shall be appointed in the posts which were available as on the relevant date, that is, the Group-C post of Office Attendant available in the 2010 Rules. They will be W.A. Nos.423, 425 and 460 of 2023 -: 16 :- entitled to the benefits as are available to other persons who were appointed along with them in pursuance to the said selection. The Writ Appeals are ordered accordingly. **Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN** **JUDGE** **Sd/C. PRATHEEP KUMAR JUDGE** Jvt/18.12.2023