Lawyers Empanelled By Banks Do Not Hold Civil Post, Reservation Under Article 16 Not Applicable To Their Appointment: Madras High Court

The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy thus set aside an order of a single judge made last year where the single judge had observed that the right to be considered for appointment was a fundamental right and had directed the banks to review their existing procedures for empanelment of lawyers.

The single judge had also observed that though the existing procedures seemed to be transparent, they did not comply with the equality clause mandated in the Constitution and often led to corruption, favoritism, and nepotism.

The division bench, however, held that the relationship between the banks and the empanelled lawyers was purely professional and not that of a master and servant. The court observed that the empanelled lawyers were not covered by any service laws and their services were purely on a contractual basis. The court added that the banks had their procedures for empanelment of lawyers and providing reservation in the same would be “stretching Article 16”.

“It would appear that the banks have laid down the procedure for empanelment. Certainly, the banks have to adhere to the said procedure. It would be stretching Article 16 of the Constitution of India too far to apply it for the empanelment of the lawyers by the banks. By not providing for the reservation in empaneling the lawyers, no provision of the Constitution of India is violated,” the court observed.

The court further observed that Article 16 would be applicable only in matters in public employment and may even be extended to appointments made in the office of State instrumentalities. However, empanelling in banks not being a civil post, the criterion to apply reservation policy would not be attracted.

The court also added that the bank dealing with public money had an obligation and duty to protect the public money in the best possible manner. for this, the banks were duty-bound to engage the most proficient and competent persons to represent it. Thus, the court opined that while empanelling, the banks were expected to choose the best and merit should be the sole consideration.

Though the court appreciated the single judge's expectations from the impugned judgment, the court added that issuing directions to the banks to provide representation to members belonging to the SC/ST/OBC communities would be beyond the judicial purview.

“In the absence of any constitutional or statutory mandate providing for reservation, it would not be possible for the courts to issue writs directing the banks to provide for reservation and/or representation to the members of SC/ST/OBC communities in empanelment of lawyers. Nonetheless, it would be appreciable if the banks follow the broad-based procedure for selecting the best and the meritorious lawyers for empanelment,” the court added.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Srinath Sridevan Senior Counsel for M/s.Aishwarya S.Nathan

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.F.B.Benjamin George, Mr.T.Poornam

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 56

Case Title: Chairman and Managing Director, UCO Bank v K Marimuthu

Case No: W.A.No.2199 of 2023

Click here to read/download the judgment