Reservation for exservicemen in clerical recruitment 2009

On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Chitaranjan Rath <[deleted]> wrote: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Chitaranjan Rath <[deleted]> Date: Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 2:05 PM Subject: RECRUITMENT IN SBI CLERK OF 2009 EX-SERVICEMEN To: [deleted], [deleted], [deleted], [deleted], [deleted] To, The AGM (HR) Recruitment Cell LHO, Bhubaneswar SUB: QUERRY REGARDING SELECTION OF EX-SERVICEMEN IN SBI CLERICAL RECRUITMENT 2009/10 Dear Sir, With due respect, I wish to request the following few lines for your kind notice and intervention 1. I am Chitaranjan Rath an Ex- Serviceman who had appeared for the SBI 2009/10 clerical recruitment with Roll No.[deleted] and had appeared in the Interview held also and achieved a total of 131 marks.The last selected candidate achieved a total of 138 marks and was lastly selected. At that time, I was not selected for Odisha. 2. Further, a court case was going on regarding the same Recruitment which was filed by some Ex-Servicemen from Odisha. SBI initial recruitment advertisement NO. CRPD/CR/2009-10/04 of 23rd July 2009, it is found that that they advertised different percentages of reservation for ex-servicemen category in different state with different yard-sticks. They advertised less percentage reserved in some States like Gujarat 10%, Karnakata 10%, Madhya Pradesh 10.09%, Chhattisgarh 9.8%, Orissa 10%, Tamilnadu 10%, Pondicherry 10%, Manipur 10%, Mizoram 10%, West Bengal 9.96, Sikkim 8.57%, Maharashtra 9.37%, Goa 9.09%, Kerala 10%, Lakshdweep 10% WHEREAS in their favorite States they reserved near to 14.5% vacancies which are Chandigarh 14.58%, Punjab 14.5%, J&K 14.28%, Haryana 14.5%, Himachal Pradesh 14.51%, Assam 14.54%, Meghalaya 15%, Arunachal Pradesh 14.28%, Nagaland 16%, Tripura 13.33%, Andhra Pradesh 14.44%, A&N Islands 13.63%, UP 14.55%, Delhi/Noida/Haryana 14.44%, Rajasthan 14.49%, Uttarakhand 14.47%, UP (Western) 14.59%, Bihar 14.36, Jharkhand 14.28%. Actually, if we proceed legally, the following are authorities which clears 14.5% reservation for ex-servicemen :- – In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the President, enacted ‘Ex-servicemen (Re-Employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979? by publishing Gazette Notification of 1st March, 1986. – Rule 6A for ‘Lower Standard for Selection’ for ex-servicemen to make deficiency in the reserved quota. – Existence of 14.5% reservation in Banking Sector in ‘Hand-Book on Resettlement of Ex-servicemen’ published by Director General Resettlement, Ministry of Defence, published in 1995. – Ministry of Defence letter No.2667/DGR/Emp-3 dated 24/04/95 addressed to The Special Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Economic Affairs, Banking Division. – Government of India – Banking Division (Government of India (Banking Division) letter of June 1997. – Paragraph 2 on the reserve side of the Proforma of the Banking Division letter referred above clarifies that the reservation for ex-servicemen is horizontal reservation and these vacancies are part of the total indent for General, SC, ST and OBC. – Paragraph 3 on the same page of the Banking Division letter referred above states that not more than 50% of the total number of vacancies in a year would be reserved for all categories, namely, SC, ST & OBC. – Paragraph 4 on the same page of the Banking Division letter referred above explains that reservation for ex-servicemen will be provided from amongst the community they belongs to SC/ST/OBC or General Category, he should be adjusted against one of the vacancy earmarked for that category so that, the total reservations should not exceed of 50% of the total vacancies. – As per the Supreme Court Order on 27% reservation provided to OBC category, Government of India, clarified vide their letters dated 1st December, 1994 and 24th August, 1995 that the percentage of reservation for ex-servicemen should remain the same as at present, that is to say that there is no change to reservations catered for the ex-servicemen. – The then Defence Minister Shri P.V.Narasimha Rao initiated a letter in 1985 on implementation of High Level Committee recommendations regarding monitoring systems to ensure that the reserved vacancies are filled by ex-Servicemen vide their letter No.2219/85/RM dated 23/03/85. – Shri P.V.Narasimha Rao, in the capacity of Prime Minister of India, again initiated a DO letter in 1995 to the Chief Ministers of the All States and the Lt. Governors of the Union Territories regarding carry forward of the reserved vacancies for ex-servicemen for a period of at least one year before they are de-reserved and introducing an effective monitoring system vide their DO letter dated 01/11/95. – The then Raksha Mantri Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav initiated a DO letter in 1996 regarding establishment of ‘ex-Servicemen Reservation Monitoring Cell’ to get the result that ex-Servicemen get full benefit of reservation policy so that ONLY ex-Servicemen should be recruited against vacancies exist for the ex-Servicemen vide their DO letter dated 11/10/96. – Ministry of Defence, vide their letter No.2667/DGR/Emp-3 dated 24/04/95, clearly instructed to keep a proper watch on the recruitment notifications issued from time to time by the Central Govt employers and any discrepancies on reservation of posts for ex-Servicemen may be intimated to the Dte General Resettlement, Ministry of Defence for taking up the matter with the concerned organization. As per the affidavit, submitted to the Honble High Court , Odisha, Paragraph 6 of the affidavit filed by Bank on 30.7.2012 reads as follows :. That from out of the petitioners only 8 persons can be given appointment who have secured 131 and above marks. I am attaching the judgement of the court, regarding 3 earlier cases(I do not know if there are other cases also), wherein court has instructed the bank to take candidates above 131 marks, and my copy of result also. The court has given a judgement regarding selection of one candidate who has secured 131 marks on 08 Sep 2014 under writ petition WP(C) 1861 of 2011 and two others vide 21152/2011 (attached) I myself , being eligible, for a job as I have secured 131 marks request your kind self at the Highest level Not to intentionally and forcibly involve myself and the Bank into legal route, there by saving the banks large resources as well as my meagre resources. I also do not feel that court is the only way out. If anything has been stated in an affidavit to the court, It needs to be respected at the earliest and obliged. 3. Now, it has come to my notice that some candidates who had less marks than me have been selected in Odisha Region. The appointment letter was issued very recently to one of the persons in concern and they have joined also. 4. I visited the LHO , Bhubaneswar also with a request to help me and get my duebut the concerned Official Mr. M Behera, HR, Dy Manager did not entertain me and harshly said me to go for RTI or approach the Courts if I feel anything wrong has been done to me. He further truly said that bank like SBI has resources to fight 1000s of court cases but it is difficult for me to go to court due to financial constraints. 5. I request you to kindly intimate me regarding my standing as I am fighting for my due legal Right. as to whether I will be given appointment or not as people in Ex- Servicemen category who have got less marks than myself have been appointed. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ COPY OF CASES AND JUDGEMENT IN MS WORD FORM http://courtnic.nic.in/orissa/main2000.asp High Court of Orissa CASE STATUS INFORMATION SYSTEM Case Status : Disposed Status of Writ Petition under Art.226 & 227.(WP(C)) 1861 of 2011 SANTOSH KU.PANDA Vs. GM,CENTRAL RECRUITME Pet's Adv. : M/S.SUBASH CH.PUSPALAKA Res's Adv. : M/S.A.K.MISHRA Date of Disposal : Monday, September 08, 2014 Category : --- Case Status As On: Thursday, September 18, 2014 Click Here for Court's Order on 8-9-2014 ? W.P.C NO.1861 of 2011 08.09.2014 Heard Mr.A.K.Mishra, learned Sr.Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.K.Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.4. Mr.A.K.Mishra, learned Sr.Counsel for the petitioner referring to the affidavit filed by opposite party-Bank in W.P.(C) No.21152 of 2011 on 30.7.2012 (at Flag H) submitted that since the petitioner has secured 131 marks, he is otherwise eligible to get employment. Paragraph 6 of the affidavit filed by opposite party-Bank in W.P.(C) No.21152 of 2011 reads as follows : 6. That from out of the petitioners only 8 persons can be given appointment who have secured 131 and above marks. Copy of the list is enclosed herewith as Annexure-A. On perusal of Annexure-A/4 to the aforesaid affidavit, it reveals that the name of the petitioner Santosh Kumar Panda finds place at Sl.No.4, who secured 131 marks. Considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusing the materials available on record, this writ petition is disposed of directing the opposite party Bank to take necessary steps for giving employment to the petitioner in terms of the averment made in paragraph 6 of the affidavit read with the list enclosed thereto as Annexure-A/4 within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of a copy of this order. Issue urgent copy as per Rules. .. Dr. B.R. Sarangi, ? High Court of Orissa CASE STATUS INFORMATION SYSTEM Case Status : Pending Status of Writ Petition under Art.226 & 227.(WP(C)) 21152 of 2011 SAROJ K.MAHAPATRA Vs. SBI Pet's Adv. : M/S.P.K.KHUNTIA Res's Adv. : M/S.D.K.MISHRA Last Listed On : Monday, January 12, 2015 Category : SELECTION Case Status As On: Friday, January 09, 2015 ? W.P.(C) No.21152 of 2011 13.08.2014 Adjourn the matter on the request on behalf of Mr. J. Pal, learned counsel for the opposite party. Put up this matter next week, let the matter appearing in the weekly list. Biswanath Rath, J. W.P.C NO.21152 of 2011 08.09.2014 As it appears, an affidavit has been filed by petitioner no.3-Akshaya Kumar Rout (at Flat 30), wherein he has stated that he is not interested to continue with the proceeding as he has already got a job in State Bank of India and therefore, he seeks deletion of his name from the cause title of the writ petition. Similarly, another affidavit has been filed by petitioner no.2-Ashok Kumar Dash (at Flag 31) seeking deletion of his name from the cause title of the writ petition as he has already joined as Gram Panchayat Extension Officer in the State of Odisha in ex-serviceman category. In that view of the matter, since petitioner nos.2 and 3 do not want to prosecute the lis, their names be deleted from the cause title of the writ petition. Mr.B.Routray, learned Sr.Counsel for the petitioners referring to the affidavit filed by opposite party-Bank on 30.7.2012 (at Flag H) submitted that since petitioner no.1-Saroj Kanta Mahapatra and petitioner no.4-Nirmal Kumar Mishra have secured above 131 marks, they are otherwise eligible to get employment. Paragraph 6 of the affidavit filed by opposite party-Bank on 30.7.2012 reads as follows : 6. That from out of the petitioners only 8 persons can be given appointment who have secured 131 and above marks. Copy of the list is enclosed herewith as Annexure-A. On perusal of Annexure-A/4 to the aforesaid affidavit, it reveals that the names of petitioner no.1-Saroj Kanta Mahapatra, bearing Roll No.[deleted] (wrongly mentioned as Saroj Kumar Mohapatra) and petitioner no.4-Nirmal Kumar Mishra, bearing Roll No.[deleted] find place at Sl.No.1 and 2, who secured 137 and 134 marks respectively. Considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusing the materials available on record, this Court directs the opposite party Bank to take necessary steps for giving employment to petitioner no.1-Saroj Kanta Mahapatra and petitioner no.4-Nirmal Kumar Mishra in terms of the averment made in paragraph 6 of the affidavit read with the list enclosed thereto as Annexure-A/4 within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of a copy of this order. Let the opposite party no.3 file an affidavit indicating that the posts advertised in 2009 pursuant to the advertisement vide Annexure-2, whereby this Court passed interim order, are not covered by the subsequent advertisement issued in 2012. Call this matter one week after. Urgent copy be granted on proper application. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I am not a party to the case till now. Request advice on what should i do to get my due job ? Thank U in advance