Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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