Calcutta High Court Rejects Canteen Boy's Plea for Permanent Bank Job After 40 Years of Service
The Calcutta High Court has delivered a significant ruling, dismissing a plea by a canteen boy who sought regularization and absorption as a subordinate employee at a bank after serving for over four decades. The court emphasized that while the petitioner's service was earnest and humble, judicial sympathy cannot be converted into constitutional rights that override established statutory recruitment frameworks.
Court's Firm Stance on Judicial Limits and Recruitment Discipline
Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay, presiding over the case, articulated a clear legal principle: "Courts cannot breathe life into a claim that has been extinguished by its own terms." The judgment underscored that judicial power cannot compel the resurrection of a career that has statutorily concluded, nor can it regularize employment outside the prescribed legal framework.
The court observed that "a court of equity does not convert sympathy into constitutional rights in favour of the petitioner; its compassion must remain tethered to legality." This statement highlights the judiciary's commitment to upholding the rule of law over emotional appeals, even in cases involving prolonged service and personal hardship.
Key Findings and Legal Rationale Behind the Decision
The court's order detailed several critical findings that formed the basis of its dismissal:
- Lack of Employer-Employee Relationship: The petitioner entered service through an employees' association, an autonomous entity not connected to the bank's statutory recruitment framework. This absence of a direct employer-employee relationship undermined the foundation for invoking constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 16.
- Statutory Schemes Cannot Be Overridden: The court ruled that legitimate expectation cannot supersede statutory recruitment schemes or compel the state to create posts or alter public employment structures.
- Age and Time Constraints: The petitioner, having crossed the age of superannuation, faced legal disadvantages. Even if a right had existed, it was rendered infructuous by the efflux of time.
- Administrative Lapses vs. Mala Fides: While criticizing the bank's administrative indecisiveness as "deprecating and disapproving," the court clarified that such lapses do not equate to mala fides or hostility that would justify judicial intervention.
Background of the Case and Petitioner's Long Service
The petitioner began his service on July 6, 1980, at the Bhadreswar Branch of the United Bank of India, working as a canteen boy with a monthly salary of Rs 60. Over the years, his duties expanded beyond canteen work to include:
- Collecting income tax challans
- Handling official documentation
- Serving as a 'Badli' sweeper in the absence of designated staff
Between 1992 and 2011, the bank issued several circulars as a one-time measure to absorb eligible canteen laborers into the subordinate cadre. The petitioner alleged that despite meeting all eligibility criteria and submitting multiple applications, he was consistently denied interviews while similarly situated employees in other branches were absorbed.
Arguments Presented by Both Sides
The petitioner's counsel, advocates Sudipta Dasgupta, Sitirtha Nayek, and Suryatapa Das, argued that the bank's persistent non-consideration was arbitrary, whimsical, and discriminatory, violating the petitioner's right to equality and dignity. They contended that the petitioner, now aged beyond 60 years, should not be denied relief merely due to administrative failures.
In response, the bank's advocates, R N Majumder, S M Obaidullah, R Choudhury, and S Chakraborty, maintained that the petitioner was never a bank employee, as he was engaged by the United Bank of India Employees' Association, an autonomous entity separate from the bank's statutory recruitment framework.
Implications for Public Recruitment and Judicial Precedent
This ruling reinforces the discipline of public recruitment in India, emphasizing that prolonged service, no matter how sincere, does not automatically translate into a right to permanent absorption. The court's decision serves as a precedent, clarifying that:
- Judicial interventions must align with statutory provisions
- Sympathy cannot create substantive rights where none exist legally
- Public employment structures must be preserved to ensure fairness and transparency
The case highlights the delicate balance between compassion and legality in the judiciary, setting a benchmark for future disputes involving long-term contractual workers seeking regularization in public sector roles.
