TRAI Issuing Directions To Enforce Regulations Is Not 'Adjudication' Of Dispute, Does Not Usurp TDSAT's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Candidate Can Challenge Selection Process After Participating If Arbitrariness Is Writ Large Or Rules Changed Mid-Way: Supreme Court Selection Committee Cannot Superimpose Additional Cut-Off Marks Not Prescribed In Rules: Supreme Court Litigants Must Ordinarily Approach High Court First For Quashing FIRs, Article 32 Is For Exceptional Circumstances: Supreme Court Supreme Court Refuses To Club Multiple FIRs In Cyber Fraud Case, Says Similar Modus Operandi Does Not Constitute 'Same Transaction' Layman Borrowers Not Liable For Forgery If Even Bank's Legal Experts Failed To Detect Fabrication In Title Deeds: Allahabad High Court Kerala High Court Orders Travancore Devaswom Board To Digitise Sabarimala Asset Inventory, Says Current Records Resemble 'Betel Shop' Ledger Second Husband In Void Marriage Cannot Be Prosecuted For Dowry Death Under Section 80 BNS: Allahabad High Court Cohabitation Of Barely 3 Months Insufficient To Trigger Presumption Of Live-In Relationship For Maintenance: Bombay High Court SC/ST Act Case Filed By Suspended Head Constable To 'Wreck Vengeance' Against Investigating Officers Quashed: Andhra Pradesh High Court Non-Compliance With Order For Production Of Documents Under O.11 R.14 CPC Cannot Warrant Striking Off Defence: Calcutta High Court Omission To Put Dying Declaration To Accused Under Section 313 CrPC Makes It Inadmissible, But Doesn't Demolish Entire Prosecution Case: Delhi High Court Victim's Appeal Against Magistrate's Acquittal Order Lies Before Sessions Court Under Section 413 BNSS: Gujarat High Court 'Fraud And Justice Cannot Dwell Together': Karnataka High Court Quashes 30-Year-Old Land Acquisition After Records Of Compensation Go Missing Electricity Authorities Cannot Determine Civil Liability For Energy Theft Under Section 135; Only Special Court Empowered: Madhya Pradesh High Court State Cannot Exploit Employees By Keeping Them On Part-Time Basis For Decades To Deny Old Pension Scheme: Punjab & Haryana HC

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
 

Latest Legal News