Sri Lankan Tamil Refugee Entitled to Continue Service Despite Citizenship Clause: Madras High Court Quashes SBI Termination
Holds long service and lawful residence cannot be ignored
The Madras High Court has set aside the termination of a Sri Lankan Tamil refugee employed with the State Bank of India (SBI), holding that her removal solely on the ground of non-citizenship was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. SBI, however, submitted that the advertisement dated 01-10-2007 explicitly invited applications only from Indian Citizens.
The Court ruled that while certain fundamental rights are confined to citizens, a non-citizen is entitled to judicial protection against discriminatory State action affecting equality and livelihood.
Justice Hemant Chandangoudar, observed, “Merely because the recruitment advertisement stipulated that applications were invited only from Indian citizens, the same cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground for termination of services, particularly when the petitioner was initially appointed without any demur, is not an illegal immigrant, and her residence in India stands regularized by virtue of Section 3 of the Order of 2025. The petitioner is extended all benefits available to Indian citizens, except such privileges and fundamental rights as are specifically reserved for citizens under Articles 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India”.
Senior Advocate K.M. Ramesh appeared for the petitioner and Advocate C. Mohan appeared for the respondents.
In the present matter, the petitioner, a registered Sri Lankan Tamil refugee, had applied for the post of Officer (Marketing and Recovery – Rural) pursuant to an SBI recruitment notification issued in 2007.
She was appointed on 05-04-2008 and continued in service, including during the period when SBI initiated a policy for absorption of contractual officers. Her name was included in the final list for absorption before her nationality became an issue during document verification.
SBI terminated her services on the ground that the recruitment advertisement restricted eligibility to Indian citizens. Challenging the termination, the petitioner contended that she had entered India as a child refugee in 1990, had pursued her education in Tamil Nadu, possessed lawful residence under refugee rehabilitation schemes, and had never suppressed her place of birth. Notably, the application form did not require disclosure of citizenship.
Rejecting SBI’s preliminary objection on maintainability, the High Court held that Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not confined to citizens and that non-citizens can invoke writ jurisdiction where State action is alleged to be arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory, attracting Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Furthermore, noting that the petitioner was married to an Indian citizen and had two children, the bench also remarked, “…The petitioner, having rendered more than 17 years as of today, if now discharged from service, would be subjected to irreparable loss and grave hardship. Such termination would not only deprive her of her means of livelihood but would also adversely affect the welfare and future of her children”.
The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents recognising that refugees and foreigners are entitled to constitutional protection of life, liberty, and equality before law.
Cause Title: G. Thirukalyanamalar v. State Bank of India & Ors. W.P.No.18835 of 2013
Appearances:
Petitioner: K.M. Ramesh, Senior Advocate, with V. Subramani, Advocates.
Respondents: C. Mohan, A. Rexy Josephine Mary, Advocates for the Respondents