Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. - (1.) The Petitioner herein was inducted into the service of the State Bank of Mysore (hereinafter referred to as, the Bank) as a temporary Sub-Staff in 1985. He was intermittently taken into employment based on the need for such staff. During the year 1994-95, he claims to have rendered more than 240 days of service in a calendar year. Based thereon, he claimed that he be included in the "protected category" of employees. Having satisfied the "protected category" criteria, the Petitioner applied for absorption as a permanent employee, by citing the example of one Devaraju, by addressing representations to the Bank. It is also the contention of the Petitioner, that the employees union of the Bank also addressed a communication dated 13.12.1997 to the management of the Bank requiring it to absorb the Petitioner as a permanent employee. Since the representations made by the Petitioner, and recommendation made by the employees union of the Bank, did not result in any consideration at the hands of the Bank, the Petitioner approached the High Court of Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as, the High Court) by filing a Writ Petition being W.P. No. 45932 of 1999. The aforesaid Writ Petition came to be disposed of by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on 14.12.2004. In this behalf, it would be relevant to mention, that the High Court did not examine the merits of the controversy raised by the Petitioner. Rather than doing that, the High Court directed the Bank to take a decision on the representation made by the Petitioner by passing a written order. The Bank was also directed to communicate the same to the Petitioner.
(2.) The bank, while examining the claim raised by the Petitioner, noticed the contention of the Petitioner as under: (i) He has worked in several branches in Mysore during the period 1985 to 1997. (ii) During 8.7.1994 to 30.8.1995, he has served for 292 days. (iii) State Bank of Mysore Employees Union has recommended him to be employed on permanent basis. He has given applications in this regard. (iv) He has passed SSLC. (v) One of his colleagues, one Shri Devaraju has also passed SSLC and he has been given employment on permanent basis. Therefore, he has prayed for passing of suitable order of appointment in his favour equivalent to the job given to one Shri Devaraju. Despite the aforesaid pleas raised at the hands of the Petitioner, the Bank by an order dated 24.8.2005, rejected the Petitioners claim for absorption as a permanent employee. Two reasons were indicated in the order dated 24.8.2005 for not accepting the Petitioners claim. It was found, that the Petitioner had not worked for 240 days in a calendar year, and that, he had qualified the SSLC examination. The Petitioner approached the High Court yet again, to impugn the order dated 24.8.2005. At this juncture, the Petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 22324 of 2005. Having dealt with the controversy raised by the Petitioner, the High Court by its order dated 13.11.2007, held that the Petitioner was not entitled to absorption as a permanent employee. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing Writ Petition No. 22324 of 2005 acknowledged, that the Petitioner had worked for 292 days from 8.7.1994 to 30.8.1995. Despite the aforesaid, the High Court was of the view, that the Petitioner could not be given the benefit claimed by him. This conclusion was drawn because the service for 240 days in a "calendar year", was to be determined with reference to service rendered between the 1st day of January of a particular year, upto 31st day of December of the same year. Examined on the basis of the aforesaid parameters, it was concluded, that the Petitioner had not render service for a period of 240 days in a "calendar year". It was also sought to be concluded, that the Petitioner had not worked in one branch of the bank during the period from 8.7.1994 to 30.8.1995. It was sought to be concluded, that while computing 240 days in a "calendar year" only service rendered in one branch of the Bank could have been taken into consideration. It was accordingly held, that service rendered in different branches could not be added together to calculate the period of 240 days (in a "calendar year"). As such, the claim raised by the Petitioner did not find favour with the High Court in its order dated 13.11.2007.
(3.) The Petitioner assailed the order dated 13.11.2007, passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court (while disposing of Writ Petition No. 22324 of 2005), by preferring Writ Appeal No. 24 of 2008. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the aforesaid Writ Appeal on 4.11.2008. While adjudicating upon the controversy, the Division Bench referred to the judgment rendered by this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1, so as to conclude, that the Petitioner was not entitled to regularization in terms of the parameters laid down by this Court.;