Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity Law of Limitation Binds All Equally, Including the State: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Review Petition with 5743 Days’ Delay Once Selected, All Are Equals: Allahabad High Court Slams State for Withholding Pay Protection From Later Batches of Ex-Servicemen Constables Non-Compliance With Section 42 of NDPS Act Is Fatal to Prosecution: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Two Accused In 160 Kg Poppy Husk Case Unregistered Agreement Creating Right of Way Inadmissible in Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Summary Decree in Partition Suit Denied: Unequivocal Admissions Absent, Full Trial Necessary: Delhi High Court No Court Can Allow Itself to Be Used as an Instrument of Fraud: Delhi High Court Exposes Forged Writ Petition Filed in Name of Unaware Citizen "Deliberate Wage Splitting to Evade Provident Fund Dues Is Illegal": Bombay High Court Restores PF Authority's 7A Order Against Saket College and Centrum Direct Anti-Suit Injunction in Matrimonial Dispute Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Refuses to Stall UK Divorce Proceedings Filed by Wife

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