Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

High Court Affirms J&K Bank’s Autonomy in Recruitment Policies, Suggests Inclusion of Ex-Servicemen”

15 November 2024 4:24 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Petition challenging exclusion of ex-servicemen from reservation benefits dismissed; court urges bank to consider future policy changes.

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a series of writ petitions challenging the exclusion of ex-servicemen from reservation benefits in the recruitment process for Banking Associates by the Jammu & Kashmir Bank. The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar, reaffirms the bank’s autonomy in recruitment policies while suggesting a review for future inclusivity of ex-servicemen.

The petitions were filed by groups of ex-servicemen aggrieved by Advertisement Notification No. JKB/HRD/Rectt/2020-73 dated July 2, 2020, issued by Jammu & Kashmir Bank for the recruitment of Banking Associates. The petitioners claimed that, as per the Jammu & Kashmir Reservation Act, 2004 and the Reservation Rules, 2005, they were entitled to a 6% horizontal reservation. They argued that the bank’s exclusion of ex-servicemen from these benefits was unlawful. The bank, however, maintained that its recruitment rules did not provide for such reservations, prompting the legal challenge.

Bank’s Autonomy in Recruitment Policies: The court upheld Jammu & Kashmir Bank’s stance that it, being an autonomous institution, is not bound by the reservation policies of the Government of Jammu & Kashmir. Justice Sanjeev Kumar emphasized, “The J&K Bank, governed by its own Articles of Association and Service Rules, is not obliged to follow government reservation policies unless explicitly incorporated in its rules.”

Horizontal Reservation for Ex-Servicemen: The petitioners contended that, as per the Jammu & Kashmir Reservation Act, 2004, and the Rules framed thereunder, they were entitled to a 6% horizontal reservation. However, the court found that the bank’s recruitment rules, specifically the amendments made on June 1, 2020, did not include ex-servicemen in the reserved categories.

Evaluation of Advertisement Notification: The court examined the advertisement notification dated July 2, 2020, and noted that while it referenced the application of reservation rules of the J&K UT, it clearly listed the categories for which reservations were provided. Ex-servicemen were not included in this list. Justice Kumar remarked, “Clause 8 of the advertisement notification must be read harmoniously with the given breakup of reserved categories, which does not include ex-servicemen.”

The court’s legal reasoning highlighted the bank’s discretion to frame its own reservation policies. The judgment clarified that the bank, despite being a public body, is not mandated to follow the reservation policy of the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir unless it chooses to incorporate such policies into its own rules. “The petitioners have no vested right either under the Constitution or any other statute to claim reservation benefits in the bank’s recruitment process,” the court stated.

Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed, “The bank, as a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, must act as a model employer and consider the valuable services rendered by ex-servicemen.” He suggested that the bank introspect and potentially revise its policies to include reservations for ex-servicemen in the future.

The High Court’s dismissal of the writ petitions underscores the autonomy of Jammu & Kashmir Bank in determining its recruitment policies. While the judgment did not mandate the inclusion of ex-servicemen in the reservation policy, it recommended that the bank consider such provisions in recognition of the services rendered by these individuals. This decision is significant as it balances the bank’s autonomy with a call for inclusivity, potentially influencing future recruitment policies within autonomous institutions.

Date of Decision: May 3, 2024
 

Similar News