Author Details:-

Gurleen Kaur
BBALLB(7^th Sem)
St. Soldier Law College

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Petitioner: Baljit Singh

Respondent: Bank of Baroda

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 2023

Case Type: Civil, Service law, Labor law, Constitutional Law

Issue: Compassionate appointment in Bank of Baroda

FACTS OF THE CASE:

• The petitioner, Baljit Singh, is the son of a Bank of Baroda employee who passed away.
• After his father passed away while he was serving, the petitioner applied for a sympathetic position at the bank through the bank’s program.
• The petitioner’s application was denied by the bank due to non-fulfillment of eligibility requirement.
• The petitioner challenged the bank’s decision in the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution.
• The petitioner claimed that his fundamental rights were violated and the bank’s decision was arbitrary.

• According to the bank, the compassionate appointment scheme is optional rather than mandatory.
• The bank’s plan, the petitioner’s constitutional rights, and the qualifying requirements were taken into consideration by the Supreme Court.
• Further Court said that bank’s scheme and criteria for sympathetic appointment are binding and must be followed, also the court noted that Baljit Singh did not meet the required qualification that bank demanded and also the age limit under the scheme.

ISSUES COVERED:

Right to Compassionate Appointment:

Whether the sympathetic appointment is a right or concession, in this landmark judgement the petitioner said that his fundamental rights got infringed because of bank’s denial. As in this case, Baljit Singh’s father who worked for Bank of Baroda, died while he was still employed. Baljit submitted an application for a sympathetic appointment through the bank’s program, but it was denied because he did not fit the requirements. The scheme’s compassion and fairness are called into question by the bank’s decision.

Eligibility Criteria:

Whether the bank’s required eligibility criteria for the sympathetic appointment is fair or not, as this issue puts stress on the bank’s denial for the appointment. The bank’s program stipulates the age and minimum educational requirements for applicants. Because Baljit Singh did not meet this criterion, despite having a lower educational qualification, he was rejected. This calls into question whether the eligibility requirements are reasonable and if they are overly stringent.

Discretionary Powers:

Another problem is the bank’s use of its discretionary authority to deny Baljit Singh’s application. For instance, the bank’s program permits arbitrary appointments under certain circumstances. Baljit Singh’s father passed away while he was serving, but the bank did not view his case as unique. This calls into question the fairness and openness of the bank’s decision-making procedure.

Fundamental Rights:

Baljit Singh may had his fundamental rights under Article 21 (right to life and livelihood) and Article 14(equality before the law) violated by the bank’s decision. For instance, Pursuant to Article 14, the bank might have discriminated against Baljit Singh on the basis of his educational background by dismissing his application. He was dependent on his father’s income, which violated Article 21, so the rejection might also have had an impact on his right to livelihood.

One more issue is the bank’s interpretation of its compassionate appointment scheme, or Scheme Interpretation. For instance, the bank’s program permits appointment for compassionate care under “extreme hardship”. According to the bank’s interpretation, this only applied to situations in which the family had no other income. But in spite of everything, Baljit Singh’s family was going through “extreme hardship” because of his father’s passing. This calls into question the bank’s interpretation’s rationality.

IMPORTANT ARGUMENTS:

Respondent (Bank of Baroda):

• Appointing people with compassion is a concession, not a right.
• Compliance with the bank’s compassionate appointment policies and procedures is required.
• Baljit Singh does not fit the scheme’s age and qualification requirements.
• It would be arbitrary and unfair to grant compassionate appointments without adhering to the plan.
• The bank may choose to accept or reject appointments based on compassion.

Petitioner (Baljit Singh):

• Compassionate appointments are allowed, especially in cases where an employee has passed away.
• The bank’s plan and criteria are arbitrary and unjust.
• The qualifying requirements and age restriction of the scheme are onerous and biased.
• The bank has not given the petitioner’s circumstances or merits any consideration.
• The petitioner’s application was unjustly rejected, which is against Article 14 of the Constitution, which protects legal equality.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

• The Bank of Baroda’s Compassionate Appointment Scheme describes the requirements and procedure for giving family members of deceased employees compassionate appointments.
• The Bank of Baroda (Transfer of Undertakings and Acquiring of Shares) Scheme, 1970, Section 12(2): This section gives the bank the authority to create policies and plans for sympathetic appointments.
• The court cited Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equal treatment under the law, to highlight the fact that compassionate appointments are a concession rather than a right.
• The Indian Constitution’s Article 226 gives high courts the authority to issue writs, which the court used to examine the bank’s ruling.
• The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Although not directly relevant, the court took this Act’s tenets into consideration when evaluating the scheme’s provisions.

PRECEDENTS CITED IN THIS JUDGEMENT:

• State Bank of India vs. Raj Kumar (2016)- Held that compassionate appointments are not a right but a concession.
• Canara Bank vs. Devaraya (2016)- Established that banks have discretionary powers to grant or reject compassionate appointments.
• United Bank of India vs. Satya Deo (2018)- Ruled that eligibility criteria and schemes for compassionate appointments must be followed.
• Punjab National Bank vs. Vimla Devi (2019)- Held that compassionate appointments cannot be granted arbitrarily, but must be based on established criteria.
• Syndicate Bank vs. K. Umesh (2020)- Emphasized the importance of following the bank’s scheme and criteria for compassionate appointments.

COURT’S JUDGEMENT:

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Bank of Baroda to reject Balji Singh’s application for a compassionate appointment, citing that he did not meet the eligibility criteria under the bank’s scheme.

The reasoning behind this judgement is the compassionate appointments are not a rigid that the court reiterated that a compassionate appointments are not a right but a concession, and banks have discretionary powers to grant or reject such appointments. Second reason is that the scheme requirements must be followed as in the court emphasized that banks must follow their established schemes and criteria for compassionate appointments, ensuring fairness and consistency. The other reasoning for this judgement is that eligibility criteria must be met, the court held at Baljit Singh did not meet the required qualifications and age limit under the bank’s scheme, and therefore, his application was rightly rejected. Also No arbitrariness in bank’s decision stated as the reason that the court found no arbitrariness in the bank’s decision, as it was based on the scheme’s requirements and eligibility criteria.

ANALYSIS:

POSITIVE ASPECT OF THE CASE:

• Clarity on compassionate appointments: The ruling makes it clear that compassionate appointments are a concession rather than a right, which will help in future cases.
• Importance of schemes and criteria: In order to ensure justice and consistency, the court highlights the necessity of adhering to established schemes and criteria for compassionate appointments.
• Discretionary powers of banks: The ruling recognizes that banks have the freedom to accept or reject compassionate appointments based on their own unique set of circumstances.

NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF THE CASE:

• Limited consideration of humanitarian grounds: Some may view the court’s decision as unduly strict, giving scheme requirements precedence over humanitarian concerns.
• Potential for Arbitrariness: As demonstrated in this case, where the petitioner’s application was denied in spite of his father’s passing while in service, the discretionary powers of banks may result in arbitrary decisions.
• Lack of flexibility: The ruling can be interpreted as being rigid, preventing even extraordinary situations from deviating from the plan.

IDEAS FOR ENHANCEMENT:

• Balancing scheme requirements with humanitarian consideration: In order to allow for flexibility in exceptional cases, banks and courts should endeavor to strike a balance between scheme requirements and humanitarian consideration.
• Clearer criteria and guidelines for compassionate appointments: To ensure consistency and transparency, banks should set more precise criteria and guidelines for compassionate appointments.
• Appeal mechanism: To ensure that worthy cases are given another chance, banks and courts should set up efficient appeal procedure.

CONCLUSION:

Compassionate appointments are a concession made by banks at their own discretion, not a right. For compassionate appointments, banks must adhere to their set policies and standards, guaranteeing impartiality and consistency.

The scheme’s eligibility requirements must be fulfilled, and banks reserve the right to reject application that don’t. there is little to no judicial involvement in bank decisions about compassionate appointments; judges will not get involved unless there is arbitrary behavior or a breach of accepted norms.

This conclusion clarifies the legal position regarding compassionate appointments in the banking industry and reiterates the principles set forth in previous cases. It emphasizes how important it is to follow established procedures and guidelines while acknowledging bank’s discretion in accepting or declining appointments that demonstrate compassion.