AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These special appeals are directed against judgments dated 31.5.18/1.6.18/20.6.18 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court, whereby the
writ petitions preferred by the respondents questioning the action of the appellants in corporatization of Individual Business Correspondents (BCs)
have been allowed and the appellants herein are directed to continue the respondents as BCs directly with the appellant-Bank and not to terminate
their services so as to replace them by another set of contractual employees or Corporate Business Correspondents, unless there is a performance
deficit on their part.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that with an aim and object to promote and provide banking services to the customers at the remote areas of
villages, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) permitted scheduled commercial banks including Regional Rural Banks and Local Area Banks to engage
BCs subject to the compliance of the guidelines issued in this regard. Vide circular dated 28.9.10, RBI decided to permit banks to engage companies
registered under the Companies Act,1956, excluding Non Banking Financial Companies as BCs in addition to the individuals/entities permitted earlier.
As per the circular issued, banks were permitted to formulate a policy for engaging BCs with the approval of Board of Directors. The banks were
directed to carry out due diligence exercise on the individuals/entities to be engaged as BCs prior to engagement, inter alia covering the aspects such
as (i) reputation/market standing (ii) financial soundness (iii) management and corporate governance (iv) cash handling ability and (v) ability to
implement technology solutions in rendering financial services.
The individuals/entities eligible to be engaged as BC were specified under clause 2 of the Guidelines as under:
“The banks may engage the following individuals/entities as BC .
i) Individuals like retired bank employees, retired teachers, retired government employees and ex-servicemen, Individual owners of kirana/medical/Fair
Price Shops, individual Public Call Office (PCO) operators, agents of Small Saving schemes of Government of India/Insurance Companies, individuals
who own Petrol Pumps, authorized functionaries of well run Self Help Groups (SHGs) which are linked to banks, any other individual including those
operating Common Service Centres (CSCs);
ii) NGOs/MFIs set up under Societies/Trust Acts and Section 25 Companies;
iii) Cooperative Societies registered under Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Acts/Cooperative Societies Acts of States/Multi State Cooperative
Societies Act;
iv) Post Offices and
v) Companies registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 with large and widespread retail outlets excluding Non Banking Financial Companies
(NBFCs).â€
The scope of activities for which the BCs were permitted to be engaged were delineated under clause 4 of the Guidelines as under:
“The scope of activities may include (i) identification of borrowers; (ii) collection and preliminary processing of loan applications including
verification of primary information/ data; (iii) creating awareness about savings and other products and education and advice on managing money and
debt counselling; (iv) processing and submission of applications to banks; (v) promoting, nurturing and monitoring of Self Help Groups/Joint Liability
Groups/Credit Groups/others; (vi) post-sanction monitoring, (vii) follow up for recovery; (viii) disbursal of small value credit; (ix) recovery of principal/
collection of interest; (x) collection of small value deposits;(xi) sale of micro insurance/mutual fund products/pension products/other third part products
and (xii) receipt and delivery of small value remittances/ other payment instruments.â€
The role of the BCs was intended to be an intermediary of the bank which will bring in the advantage of its outreach through its existing network to
offer banking services to the society. The BCs engaged were permitted to appoint/have employees/contact workers, members agents etc. for
rendering services as defined hereinabove. It was responsibility of the BCs to ensure that Member carries out activities as per the procedure laid
down. The BCs were to be paid reasonable commission/fee, the rate and quantum of which was to be reviewed periodically.
Pursuant to the Circulars/Guidelines issued by the RBI, the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (SBBJ) issued an advertisement for engaging BCs
which are also known as Service Provider (SP) and Bank Mitra. The respondents who were interested in providing such services, applied for
engagement as BCs/SPs. After scrutiny of the applications, an interview was conducted and thereafter, after due verification of documents, they
were selected for engagement as BCs.
The SBBJ entered into an agreement with each of the respondents separately to take their services as BC, referred to in the agreement executed
as SP. The agreement entered into between the concerned candidate and the appellant Bank provides for various details including scope of services,
the duties of SP, maintenance of record by SP and monitoring/inspection by the bank, confidentiality, relationship of the parties, payments, terminations
and other relevant aspects.
Clause 4 of the agreement deals with relationship between the parties, which reads as under:
“4.1 It is specifically agreed that the SP shall act as independent service provider and shall not be deemed to be the Agent of the Bank except in
respect of the transactions/services which give rise to Principal Agent relationship by implication.
4.2 SP shall not hold out or represent himself/herself as agent or employee of the Bank. The SP shall not be entitled to claim permanent absorption or
any other claim or benefit against the Bank. The relation is on principal-to-principal basis. The SP is not entitled to engage any person as his/her
employee, agent, representative or sub-contractor. He/She shall perform all the work of the Business Correspondent (BC) under this agreement
himself/herself.
4.3 The SP shall not be eligible to raise any industrial dispute either directly or indirectly against the Bank in respect of condition of service,
engagement or employment etc. It is made clear that there shall not be any employer-employee, principal -agent and/or master-servant relation
between SP and the Bank.â€
Inter alia the SBBJ which engaged the respondents as BCs was merged in State Bank of India (SBI) vide notification dated 1.4.17. Accordingly,
an undertaking was obtained by SBI from the respondents to the effect that after merger, they undertake to work in SBI as BC, on the same terms
and conditions regarding fee, remuneration structure etc. as applicable in SBI.
While consolidation exercise of Associate Banks with the SBI was in progress, vide circular dated 12.4.17 issued by SBI, it was decided that
Customer Service Points (for short ‘CSP’) of well established National BCs should only be engaged henceforth and in exceptional cases
individual BCs can be engaged on the case to case basis with the prior approval from the Circle Management Committee. Vide circular dated 18.5.17
regarding existing individual BCs, the Administrative and Business Office were requested to carry out detailed review immediately and explore the
feasibility of converting them as CSPs of National BCs. Vide yet another circular dated 19.5.17 issued by the SBI in order to further strengthen the
process of engagement of individual BCs, the existing instructions on engaging individual BCs were modified. It was provided that selection of
individual BCs in future shall be done by Selection Committee at Corporate Centre. That apart, in respect of renewal of existing individual BCs, it was
provided that the Circles should review the performance of individual BCs and arrange to re-engage them as CSPs of corporate BCs before 31st
October, 2017.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid circulars dated 12.4.17 and 19.5.17, the respondents Nitin Kumar and others, in all 68 in number, preferred a writ
petition being S.B.C.Writ Petition No.6462/17 before this court, claiming the reliefs as under:
“(a) The respondents may be directed to continue the petitioners on the post of Business Correspondent (BC) directly as are/were continuing for
last many years and
(b) The respondents may be directed not to terminate the services of the petitioners so as to replace contractual employees by other set of employees.
(c) The order dated 18.05.2017 & 19.05.2017 Annex-11 providing for getting the services of the petitioners through private contractor/placement
agency/corporate companies may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(d) That the costs of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioner.
(e) That any other appropriate writ or order or direction which is favourable to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be
granted to the petitioner.â€
During the pendency of the said petition, vide circular dated 17.10.17 issued by the SBI, the aforesaid e-circulars dated 12.4.17 and 19.5.17 were
withdrawn and therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners in the writ petition referred supra regarding withdrawal of their existing engagement did
not survive. However, the petitioners therein insisted for the reliefs (a) & (b) referred supra. The learned Single Judge of this court opined that for the
above two reliefs, no writ can be issued granting such declaration and the petitioners should approach the appropriate forum/authority in accordance
with law for declaration sought by them and accordingly, the writ petition preferred was dismissed vide order dated 16.11.17, as having become
infructuous.
After dismissal of the writ petition as aforesaid, the SBI issued a circular dated 16.2.18, enforcing its decision regarding corporatization of
individual BCs and accordingly, it was clarified that National BCs have been asked to provide CSPs at the locations where individual BCs were
working, whose codes were being deactivated on expiry of their agreements. It was further directed that erstwhile/existing individual BC, who may be
willing to work as CSP of National BCs, the benefit of their existing business may be passed on to his new code.
In these circumstances, aggrieved by the insistence of the appellants for engagement of individual BCs as CSP of National BCs, the respondents
including the individuals, those whose earlier writ petition was dismissed by this Court as aforesaid, filed fresh petitions claiming the relief as under :
“(a) The respondents may be directed to continue the petitioners on the post of Business Correspondent (BC) directly as are/were continuing for
last many years, and
(b) The respondents may be directed not to terminate the services of the petitioners so as to replace contractual employees by other set of employees.
(c) The action of the Respondents in corporatization of individual business correspondents may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(d) That the costs of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioner.
(e) That any other appropriate writ or order or direction which is favourable to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be
granted to the petitioner.â€
The respondents contended before the learned Single Judge that under RBI Notification/Guidelines the engagement of individual BCs has not been
discontinued and therefore, the action of the appellants herein, in disengaging/terminating existing individual BCs and insisting for their corporatization
is illegal and arbitrary. It was contended that the respondents were rendering their services for last so many years with dedication and loyalty, to the
utmost satisfaction of the appellants and they have invested their hard money and valuable time only with legitimate expectation that their services
shall continue directly with the appellants. Relying upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was contended that one set of
contractual employees cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employees and thus, the action of the appellants in disengaging individual BCs
and insisting their engagement through National BCs is per se illegal. The respondents contended that the decision of the appellants would frustrate the
very purpose of the Scheme introduced by RBI to extend/outreach the banking facility to the rural folk, while giving attention on individual/family basis,
which could not be catered in appropriate manner by corporate entities. Precisely, the respondents contended that the action of SBI in indulging in
corporatization of individual BCs runs contrary to the Guidelines issued by the RBI from time to time.
On behalf of the appellant Bank, it was contended before the learned Single Judge that the respondents herein, have indulged in mis-statement and
concealment of material facts in not disclosing the factum of dismissal of earlier writ petition preferred by them claiming the similar reliefs, by the
learned Single Judge of this court, vide order dated 16.11.17. It was contended that the agreement entered into between the parties contains arbitration
clause and thus, for the resolution of the dispute raised, the respondents were under an obligation to invoke the arbitration clause in the contract and
the writ petition preferred was not maintainable. According to the appellants there was no master and servant relationship existed between the parties
and the contract for service entered into between the parties having come to an end, could not be directed to be continued. The appellants contended
that the Guidelines issued by the RBI permitting Banks to engage BCs cannot be enforced and thus, discontinuation of the individual BCs on expiry of
the agreement entered into between the parties, cannot be faulted with. It was contended that by virtue of provisions of Section 14 of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963, the specific performance of the contract cannot be enforced where compensation can be an adequate relief, which arises only when
there is challenged to the termination/cancellation of the contract.
After due consideration of the rival submissions, the learned Single Judge opined that the earlier writ petition preferred by the respondents was
dismissed as having become infructuous with liberty to the petitioners to take appropriate remedies against the future actions putting their arrangement
to peril, in accordance with law and thus, in absence of adjudication on merits, the same cannot operate as res judicata. Learned Single Judge
observed that the question pertains to livelihood of the respondents herein and thus, their right to agitate the action, diminishing their rights protected
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, cannot be denied and they are entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction. Taking into consideration, the terms
and conditions of the engagement of the respondents as BCs and the procedure adopted for their engagement, which includes issuance of
advertisement, eligibility criteria etc., the learned Single Judge opined that there exists employer and employee relationship between the BCs and the
Bank. The learned Single Judge observed that eligibility of individual like retired persons, owner of kirana stores, medical/fair price shops would not
have any effect on the nature of work performed by the respondents being the contractual appointees. Relying upon the decisions cited at Bar, learned
Single Judge opined that one set of contractual employees cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employees unless their conduct and
performance is under the cloud. The learned Single Judge opined that such contractual employee could be replaced by regularly selected employees
by the employer and further, if the scheme or project, in which, such employees are working itself comes to an end. Learned Single Judge arrived at
the conclusion that the placement of the individual BCs under the corporates would expose them to exploitative tendencies of a corporate entity,
particularly in the light of the fact that the corporate entity would not have any stake in the institution and thus, the institutional welfare of its
employees would never be its prerogative. Accordingly, while allowing the writ petitions preferred by the respondents, they have been extended the
relief as indicated above. Hence, these appeals.
Mr. R.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the learned Single Judge has seriously erred in
holding that the earlier writ petition preferred by the respondents was not adjudicated on merits and therefore, the order passed therein cannot operate
as res judicata. Drawing the attention of the Court to the order dated 16.11.17 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B.C.Writ Petition No.6462/17,
learned counsel submitted that the identical reliefs claimed by the respondents in the earlier writ petition were specifically noticed by the learned Single
Judge and the respondents were non suited observing that in respect of those reliefs, no writ can be issued and the petitioners should approach the
appropriate forum/authority in accordance with law for declaration sought by them. Learned counsel would submit that the claim of the respondents
that their services may not be terminated having not been entertained by the learned Single Judge, the fresh writ petitions filed claiming the identical
reliefs, were obviously barred by principle of res judicata.
Learned senior counsel submitted that after merger of SBBJ in SBI, pursuant to the undertaking given, the respondents entered into fresh
agreement with the appellant SBI, which was to remain in force for the specified term and therefore, the respondents cannot claim the renewal of the
agreement as a matter of right. Drawing the attention of the court to clause 4 of the agreement, which provides for relationship between the parties,
learned senior counsel submitted that the SPs engaged as an independent service provider were never intended to be agent of the Bank except in
respect of transactions/services which give rise to Principal Agent relationship by implication. It was specifically agreed upon that the SP engaged
shall never hold out or represent himself/herself as agent or employee of the Bank. Learned counsel referred to clause 6 of the agreement to show
that the SPs engaged were to be paid fees and commission and not the salary, as contended on behalf of the respondents. Drawing the attention of the
court to clause 8 of the agreement, learned Senior Counsel pointed out that bank as well as the concerned Service Provider were entitled to terminate
the agreement by giving one month’s notice in writing. Learned counsel submitted that the process adopted for selection of SPs in no manner can
be equated with the regular selection process adopted by the Bank for regular recruitment of the posts in the cadre and thus, the contention of the
respondents before the learned Single Judge that they have been engaged after due process of selection, is absolutely misconceived. Learned counsel
submitted that without examining the issue whether the respondents have been at all engaged by the Bank as contractual employee and there exists
master and servant relationship between them, the learned Single Judge while assuming them to be contractual employees proceeded to hold that one
set of contractual employees cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employees unless their conduct and performance is under cloud.
Learned counsel would submit that none of the respondents were recruited against any cadred post and thus, the view taken by the learned Single
Judge that contractual employee could be replaced by only regularly selected employees by the employer, on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, is ex facie erroneous. Learned counsel submitted that the SBI is not under an obligation to follow earlier system adopted by the SBBJ in
engaging BCs and thus, the policy decision taken to ask National BCs for providing CSPs at the location where individual BCs were engaged, cannot
be faulted with. Learned counsel submitted that taking into consideration the interest of the existing BCs, it is specifically provided that if they are
willing to work as CSP of National BCs, they may do so and in that event, their existing business shall be passed to their new code and thus, no
prejudice whatsoever is likely to be caused to the existing BCs. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that once the policy decision is taken by the Bank,
the same cannot be assailed by filing writ petition before this court. Learned counsel submitted that the circular issued by the RBI permits engagement
of inter alia the Companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956 as BCs and thus, the policy decision taken by the Bank in conformity with the
RBI circular which was not impugned before the learned Single Judge, cannot be questioned. Relying upon a Bench decision dated 11.10.17 of
Gujarat High Court in the matter of ‘Gulamrasul Habibhal Badi & 65 Vs. State Bank of India (SBI) & 3’ (LPA No.1146 of 2017 in Special
Civil Application No.12965 of 2017 and other connected matters), learned Senior Counsel submitted that after due consideration of all the relevant
aspects, it has been categorically held by the Gujarat High Court that the individuals engaged as BCs cannot be considered to be the employees of SBI
as they were engaged only as service provider for running business on commission basis. The Court held that there was no employer and employee
relationship between the petitioners therein and the respondent-Bank and thus, according to the learned counsel the controversy raised stands set at
rest by the decision of Gujarat High Court in Gulamrasul Habibhai Badi’s case (supra).
On the other hand, Mr. Ravi Bhansali, Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that as per RBI circular, it was never intended to
discontinue the system of engagement of individual basis rather, the Banks have been permitted to engage Companies registered under the Companies
Act, 1956 excluding NBFCs in addition to the individuals/entities permitted earlier, subject to the compliance with the guidelines and thus, the action of
the appellant Bank in doing away with engagement of BCs on individual basis and insisting for their engagement as CSP of National BCs, is ex facie
arbitrary. Learned counsel submitted that on engagement, the commission is paid to BCs, in proportion to the amount collected and therefore, if the
alleged policy decision of the Bank for engagement of the respondents individual BCs, as CSP of National BCs is given effect to, the major portion of
the commission earned by them would go to corporate BCs, which is ex facie unfair and unreasonable. Learned counsel submitted that the services of
the respondents were found satisfactory and therefore, extension was granted to them from time to time and thus, without there being any justifiable
reason, the decision of the Bank in placing the respondents in the hands of the National BCs is unjust and improper. Learned counsel fairly submitted
that as per the terms of the agreement, the respondents were engaged as SP and not as employees of the Bank, but if the veil is lifted to find out the
true nature of the engagement, it reveals that for all intent and purposes, the respondents were working under the direct control of the appellant Bank
and were discharging the same duties which are being discharged by the regularly recruited employees of the Bank and thus, the finding arrived at by
the learned Single Judge regarding the existence of master and servant relationship between the Bank and the respondents cannot be faulted with.
Learned counsel would submit that the respondents have never claimed regularisation in service rather, they claimed that their existing contractual
engagements should not be discontinued and they may not be compelled to serve the Bank through National BCs and thus, nothing turns on the
question that the respondents have not been engaged against the cadre posts.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
Indisputably, the BC model has been introduced by the RBI to offer Banking Services to the unBanked and excluded segment of population of the
country specially those living in rural areas. The Banks were permitted to formulate a policy for engaging BCs with the approval of their Board of
Directors. It was specifically laid down that due diligence may be carried out on the individuals/entities to be engaged as BCs prior to their
engagement, covering the aspects inter alia such as (i) reputation/ marketing standing; (ii) financial soundness; (iii) management and corporate
governance; (iv) cash handling ability and (v) ability to implement technology solutions in rendering financial services. Obviously, engagement of the
BCs for financial inclusion of rural population involves huge risks and therefore, it was made imperative that the Bank shall carry out due diligence
exercise for ensuring the protection of the customers.
It is pertinent to note that besides the individuals like retired bank employees, retired teachers etc., the owners of kirana/medical/fair price shops,
PCOs, Small Saving Scheme Agents of Government of India/Insurance Companies, NGOs, MFIs, Cooperative Societies registered under the State
Acts or Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, Post Offices, Companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956, excluding the NBFCs were also
included in the eligibility zone for engagement as BCs. Under the Scheme, the decision to engage the BCs in the categories specified is left to the
discretion of the Bank concerned and it is not obligatory upon the Bank to engage individual BCs in preference to other entities. The guidelines issued
in no manner suggests that individuals engaged shall have a different status as BCs vis-a-vis other entities engaged such as NGOs, Cooperative
Societies, Companies etc. That apart, as per the BC model introduced, a BC can be a BC for more than one Bank, at the point of customer interface,
a retail outlet or a sub-agent of a BC, shall represent and provide banking services of only one bank. Suffice it to say that the permissibility of
engagement of individual as BC is not restricted to one bank.
It is true that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the appellant-Bank inviting applications from eligible candidates, the respondents applied for
selection as BCs and on being declared successful in interview, were engaged as BCs by executing the agreement. But then, a bare perusal of the
agreement executed between the respondents individually and the appellant-Bank makes it abundantly clear that the respondents were engaged as SP
and not as contractual employees. The nature of services to be provided by the SP engaged as aforesaid were also specified in clause 1.2 of
agreement. It cannot be disputed that some of the duties casted upon the SPs engaged are akin to the duties performed by the employees of the Bank
but on that account their engagement as SPs shall not stand converted into the engagement as contractual employees of the Bank.
As a matter of fact, the relationship between the parties to the agreement has also been specifically dealt with under clause 4 of the agreement,
which makes it plain that the SP shall act as independent service provider and shall not be deemed to be the agent of the Bank except in respect of
transactions/services which give rise to Principal Agent relationship by implication. SP has been cautioned not to hold out or represent himself/herself
as agent or employee of the Bank. Further, it was also specially provided that the SP shall not be entitled to claim permanent absorption or any other
claim or benefit against the Bank and the relation shall be principal to principal basis.
Under clause 5 of the agreement, the responsibility of complying with the provisions of all applicable laws concerning or in relation to rendering of
services by SP envisaged under the agreement has also been fastened upon the SP engaged and they are required to maintain all necessary licenses,
permissions, approvals from relevant authorities under the applicable laws throughout the currency of the agreement.
Coming to the nature of payments to be made by the Bank to the SP for the services rendered, it is specifically provided under clause 5.1 that the
SP shall be paid fees and commission in the manner detailed in the Schedule B annexed to the agreement subject to deduction of income tax
whenever required under the provisions of Income Tax Act by the Bank. All other taxes including Service Tax, Duties and other charges which may
be levied are also agreed to be borne by the SP. The cost of field devices i.e. equipments required for carrying on SP activities at customer service
point is also required to be borne by the SP from his own sources.
Thus, apparently, the agreement entered into between the parties was a contract for service and not a contract of service.
As laid down by a Full Bench of this court in the matter of ‘Akhil Raj Rajya Hand Pump Mistries Sanghathan & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors.’, 1994 (1) WLC 1, there is a clear distinction between a contract of service and contract for service. A contract of service does give rise to
a relationship of master and servant but a contract for service does not give rise to such a relationship. The distinction in two concepts, though fine and
subtle is nonetheless real. It is easy to distinguish one concept from other though it may be difficult to formulate the distinction precisely.
There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that the court can always lift the veil to find out true fact situation so as to do complete justice
between the parties to the lis. But, in the instant case, as discussed hereinabove, under the Scheme, it is not only the individuals but other entities may
also be engaged as BCs and the status of an individual engaged as BC vis-a-vis other entities engaged as BC, is not different and thus, it is difficult to
accept that in respect of individual BCs engaged, there exists a master and servant relationship, which obviously cannot be recognized for other
entities engaged. Moreover, the unequivocal terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement entered into between the parties regarding the nature
of the services to be rendered by BCs, the mode of payments for services rendered, the term of engagement & termination and the responsibility
fastened on the BCs engaged, clearly indicate that the contract between the appellant Bank and the respondents was a contract for service and not a
contract of service giving rise to master and servant relationship. Thus, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge merely on the basis of
procedure adopted for their engagement which includes issuance of advertisement, eligibility criteria etc. that there exists employer and employee
relationship between the BCs and the Bank, without examining the terms and conditions of the agreement in their entirety, in our considered opinion, is
erroneous and cannot be sustained.
The learned Single Judge has observed that one set of contractual employees cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employees unless
their conduct and performance is under cloud. But in the instant case, it was not even the case set out by the respondents that while terminating their
engagement as BCs, other individuals were being engaged by the Bank as BCs. To the contrary, the grievance of the respondents was that their
engagement as individual BCs should not be terminated, they should be continued as BCs, engaged directly with the Bank and should not be insisted
upon for their engagement through National BCs. A fortiori, having arrived at the conclusion that there exists no master and servant relationship
between the Bank and the respondents engaged as BCs, for the parity of reasons assigned, the question of substitution of one set of contractual
employees by another set of contractual employees also does not arise.
The learned Single Judge has erred in arriving at the conclusion that the respondents contractual employees, could be replaced only by regularly
selected employees inasmuch as, admittedly, the posts of BCs were never the cadred posts either in SBBJ or in SBI and therefore, the question of
filling of such posts by way of regular selection, does not arise.
Further, the term of the respondents’ engagement as individual BCs having come to an end, this court can neither direct the respondents to
extend the term of the contract nor such contract for service could be directed to be enforced by this court, invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is open for the respondents to accept or not to accept their engagement through National BCs or sue
the respondents by availing appropriate remedy available under the law for breach of the contract, if any. It is pertinent to note that clause 11 of the
last agreement entered into between the parties, a copy whereof is placed on record, any or all disputes, controversies and conflicts arising out of the
agreement in connection with the agreement or the performance or non performance of the rights and obligation set forth or the breach termination
invalidity of interpretation thereof, shall be referred to arbitration in terms of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and therefore, it is also open for the
respondents to raise the dispute invoking arbitration clause incorporated in the agreement as aforesaid.
Coming to the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge regarding the decision of this court in Writ Petition No.4304/18 preferred by some
of the respondents viz. Ashish Kumar and others, suffice it to say that while dismissing the writ petition as infructuous on account of withdrawal of the
circulars dated 12.4.17 and 19.5.17 vide circular dated 17.10.17 issued by the SBI, the learned Single Judge declined to entertain the petition in respect
of the reliefs (a) and (b) referred supra, stating that no writ can be issued granting such declaration and the respondents herein should approach the
appropriate form/authority in accordance with law for declaration sought for and thus, the fresh petition filed by the respondents who were petitioners
in the earlier writ petition, claiming the relief (a) and (b) in respect whereof, the learned Single Judge had earlier declined to entertain the petition, was
not maintainable.
In view of the discussion above, we are not agreeable to the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petitions
preferred by the respondents and therefore, the impugned judgments cannot be sustained and deserve to be set aside.
In the result, the special appeals are allowed. The judgments under appeal dated 31.5.18/1.6.18/20.6.18 passed by the learned Single Judge of this
court are set aside. The writ petitions preferred by the respondents are dismissed. No order as to costs.