Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 2050-2052 of 1996
PETITIONER:
BAITARANI GRAMIYA BANK
RESPONDENT:
PALLAB KUMAR AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/09/2003
BENCH:
M.B. SHAH & DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
2003 Sjupp(3) SCR 571
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. : These appeals are directed against the judgment
and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa dated
26.09.1994 in O.J.C. Nos. 1866, 2981 and 5052 of 1991.
The High Court, by the impugned judgment, has allowed the writ petitions
filed by the respondents herein and has directed the appellant-Bank to
issue appointment orders to them for the post of Officer/Field Supervisors.
For the purpose of recruitment, the Banking Service Recruitment Board
(hereinafter referred to as "the BSRB") issued an advertisement in the
newspapers. The contention of the Bank before the High Court was that in
view of the financial crisis they had revised their indents submitted to
the BSRB, long before the publication of the results regarding intimation
of selection and as such the BSRB ought not to have gone ahead and issued
letters of selection based on the original indent submitted by the Bank to
the candidates and that merely by getting an intimation of selection, no
right accrues to the candidates for appointment.
The selections to the category of Officers in the Bank is done by the BSRB.
Indents are submitted by the Bank to the BSRB. By letter dated 14.01.1987,
an indent was placed by the Bank to the BSRB. In the said indent for the
category of Officers, 36 posts were mentioned and for the category of Field
Supervisors, 61 posts were mentioned. Thereafter, by letter dated
23.06.1987, the indent for Field Supervisors was revised from 61 to 30. By
further letter 18.11.1987 another revised indent was submitted, wherein the
requirements were as follows :
Officers Cadre ... 36
Field Supervisors ... 30
On 23.08.1988 a revised indent was submitted by the Bank to the BSRB under
which their requirements were as follows :
Officers ... 14
Field Supervisors ... 11
This letter was replied to by the BSRB on 01.09.1988 whereunder they
refused to accommodate the Bank’s request. According to the Bank, as stated
in the grounds of special leave petition, the reasons which had pruned
their indent well ahead of the publication of the results were :
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11
(a) the Bank incurred loss of more than Rs. 7. crores;
(b) the target in the various anti-poverty programmer could not be met on
account of the loss;
(c) the ban imposed by the State Government, for the opening of further
branches, in view of the loss;
(d) due to poor recovery performances, the rural banks became ineligible
for refinance from NABARD and
(e) due to the Award given by the National Industrial Tribunal on
30.04.1990, all staff of Gramiya Bank were equated with the corresponding
staff of the Sponsor Bank as regards pay and allowances and all other
benefits with retrospective effect from 1987. In view of this the arrears
payable to the existing employees alone come to Rs. 2. crores and
establishment expenditure increased by 150%.
According to the Bank they had bona fide and genuine reasons for pruning
down the indent and the Bank had communicated the revised indent by
23.08.1988, well ahead of the publication of the results and if the Banks
are forced to accommodate Officers and Field Supervisors more than their
required indent, it will have a crippling effect on the Bank.
As already noticed, the Bank had placed a revised indent in view of the
changed circumstances. However, the BSRB expressed its unwillingness to
accept the revised indent and they had stated that the matter will be
considered by the Board. In the meeting of the Board held on 11.11.1988, it
was decided that no reduction in the original indent was to be done. The
BSRB expressed their unwillingness to accommodate the appellant-Bank’s
request and sent nomination letters to the respondents based on the
original indent and also published the results and also intimated the
selection on 28.11.1988. The respondents/candidates aggrieved by the non-
absorption filed writ petitions in the High Court seeking Mandamus
directing the appellant-Bank to appoint them in the respective posts. The
matter was placed before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division
Bench observing that as a common merit list was drawn by the BSRB, there
can be no dispute that the appointments have to be strictly in accordance
with the merit list, in view of the conflicting views expressed in various
decisions placed the writ applications before a larger Bench to decide the
question as to (a) when specific vacancies were intimated by the Gramiya
Banks for appointment to the posts of Field Supervisors and Officers, and
in pursuance of their indent, the BSRB conducted one common examination,
and the petitioners were successful, whether they can be denied the orders
of appointment by the concerned Bank on the ground of financial crisis, (b)
when BSRB after conducting examination in respect of all the posts prepared
one merit list and because of individual choice, any/some successful
candidates were allotted to a particular Bank whether the Bank, to which
any successful candidate is allotted can refuse order of appointment even
if the candidate is higher up in the select list. Particularly, in this
case while other Banks issued appointment orders to other successful
candidates, non-issuance of appointment letters by Baitarini Gramiya Bank
will be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and (c)
whether a person selected in pursuance of an advertisement for selection
has a right to demand order of appointment, if he is higher up in merit
list, and others lower in the merit list are appointed in other Banks.
The Full Bench held as follows :
"Coming to the question referred to us, we may say that the ground given in
the present case for slashing down is "financial crisis". As to this
reason, we would say, as admitted by Shri Dora that the entire finance for
Gramiya Banks comes from outside sources; 35% from the sponsor Bank, 15%
from the concerned State Government and the remaining 50% from the Central
Government. So, there is no financial contribution by the Gramiya Bank. We,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11
therefore, do not understand as to what financial crisis was there or could
have been there for the Bank at hand to slash down the indent to 14, unless
that was a self-created crisis. Shri Dora submits that the crisis was
generated because the aforesaid authorised were not carrying out their
obligations. That, however, was a matter to be taken up with the concerned
authorities. The selected candidates cannot be allowed to suffer because of
this, as the result of the same may be that a selectee would not get
appointment even if he be higher in merit list whereas a candidate lower in
ranking would get appointment, which could be totally against public
interest and cannot be allowed to take place. This is our answer to
question No. (a).
Question No. (b) answers itself in view of our answer to question No. (a).
To reiterate, we say that once an allotment is made to a particular Bank,
it would not be open to it to refuse appointment which would even be
violative of Article 16 of the Constitution.
As to question No. (c), we would state that though in law a selected
candidate does not acquire an indefeasible right of appointment in view of
what has been held by a Constitution Bench in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of
India, AIR (1991) SC 1612, which was followed by a three Judge Bench
decision in Union of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh, AIR (1993) SC 16, but the
Scheme of selection of the Officers and other employees of the regional
rural Banks, to which we have referred, which requires examination of the
matter by a centralised agency (the Board) and which permits giving of
option and visualises preparation of a select list as per descending order
of merit, would clothe a selectee higher up in the merit list with a right
to demand appointment if a person lower in the list has been appointed in
any other Bank, any other view would denude his fundamental right available
by the force of Article 16 of the Constitution.
The aforesaid are our answers to the three questions. Let the cases be now
placed before the Bench which had made the reference for their disposal
keeping in view the answers given."
The Division Bench after remand by the Full Bench passed the following
order:
"As noted earlier, while referring the cases to the Full Bench, we had
discussed in detail the case of the parties and the contentions raised on
their behalf. Therefore, we do not like to burden this order by repeating
the same in the said order. For the present purpose, it is sufficient to
state that the Full Bench has answered all the three questions formulated
in favour of the petitioners. In that view of the matter, there is little
scope for doubt that the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs claimed.
Accordingly the writ petitions are allowed. The opposite party Baitarani
Gramiya Bank is directed to issue appointment orders to the petitioners in
the respective posts for which they have been selected forthwith. There
will be no order for costs."
Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 26.09.1994 of the Division Bench
of the High Court, the above three appeals were filed.
Mr. K..V. Viswanathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Bank,
submitted that the impugned order has totally overlooked the prejudice that
would be caused to public interest if the respondents are directed to be
appointed in the appellant-Bank. He also submitted that in the
advertisement issued by the BSRB, based on their original indent, it was
clearly mentioned that the vacancies are approximate and likely to be
varied upward or downwards depending on the needs of the indenting Banks
and that this aspect of the matter has not been considered at all either by
the Full Bench or by the Division Bench of the High Court. He would further
submit that in the case of the appellant-Bank, the revised indent was
submitted on 23.08.1988, long before the publication of the result an
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11
intimation of selection was sent to the respondents and the BSRB ought to
have sent the nominations on the basis of the revised indent and not on the
basis of the original indent and that for the fault of the BSRB, the
appellant-Bank cannot be prejudiced. In any case, he submitted that the
selection/nomination does not confer a indefeasible right on the
respondents to seek appointments and the selection intimation was not an
offer of appointment when in fact in the selection nomination itself it was
mentioned that the offer of appointment was to be made by the Bank. It is
to be noted that no such offer was made. He further submitted that the Bank
had reduced the indent for bona fide reasons as stated in the grounds of
special leave petition and that the Bank had bona fide and genuine reasons
for pruning down the indent.
Referring to the Full Bench judgment of the High Court, Mr. Viswanathan,
learned counsel submitted that there was no material cither before the Full
Bench or before the Division Bench to prove that candidates with lesser
merit had been favoured with letters of appointment and in the absence of
any material particulars, the Full Bench could not have been proceeded on
the basis that candidates with lesser merit were given offers of
appointment and candidates with higher merits were denied. He would further
argue that, in any case, it is for the BSRB to accommodate the unabsorbed
candidates since it was their fault of having proceeded on the basis of the
original indent and not on the basis of the revised indent in spite of
their own advertisement clearly intimated the candidates that the vacancies
notified were only approximate and are likely to vary upwards or downwards
depending on the needs of the indenting Bank, Mr. Viswanathan, in support
of his contention, placed reliance on the following judgments :
1. Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India reported in [1991] 3 SCC 47.
2. Babita Prasad & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in [1993] Supp.
3 SCC 268.
3. State of Bihar & Ors. v. Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees
Union (1986) & Ors. reported in [1994] 1 SCC 126.
4. Rani Laxmibai Kshetriya, Griming Bank v. Chand Behari Kapoor & Ors.,
reported in [1998] 7 SCC 489.
5. State of A.P. & Anr. v. V. Sadanandam & Ors. reported in AIR (1989) SC
2060.
6. Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh & Ors., reported in
[1993] 1 SCC 154.
Concluding his arguments, Mr. Viswanathan submitted that the judgment of
the Division Bench impugned in these appeals is liable to be set aside and
interfered with.
Mr. Vinoo Bhagat, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, in reply
to the arguments of Mr. Viswanathan raised a preliminary objection in
regard to the maintainability of the present appeals. He said that this
Court had already dismissed an earlier special leave petition of the Bank
being Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2505 of 1992 by order dated
03.03.1992 against another judgment of the High Court directing the Bank to
appoint the respondent therein who was placed at serial No. 4 in the same
Select List of Field Supervisors in which respondent No. 2 in the present
matters (Special Leave Petition No. 738 of 1995) is placed at serial No. 3
and that the Respondent No. 2 is at a higher position in the same select
list than the respondent in the earlier Special Leave Petition, he cannot
be denied appointment when the person below him has been appointed pursuant
to the rejection of the earlier Special Leave Petition. He would further
submit that the writs issued by the High Court in two earlier writ
petitions, OJ.C. No. 1265 of 1991 (the one challenged in the special leave
petition mentioned above) and No. 6566 of 1991 (which was not challenged),
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11
have been implemented and the writ petitioners, Soya Prasad Rath and Anjan
Kumar Mallik, have been appointed in their respective posts and, therefore,
it is illegal and improper that the appellant-Bank should thereafter
challenge the High Court’s judgment in the remaining cases of the present
respondents and, therefore, the plea in the present special leave
petitions/ appeals that the appellant-Bank had to produce the indents due
to subsequent events was negatived in the two judgments of the High Court
also and became final in respect of the same dispute and, therefore, these
special leave petitions are liable to be dismissed.
Arguing further, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
appellant-Bank was bound to disclose the dismissal of its previous special
leave petitions in identical matter, as also the fact that it had
implemented the High Court’s writs issued in other similar matters, but it
has chosen to indulge in suppression instead and therefore, the present
matters are liable to be dismissed on account of such suppression. In
regard to the reasons for reducing the indent given by the Bank, learned
counsel submitted that the reasons stated in the special leave petitions,
namely, the financial constraints etc. find no place in the contemporaneous
documentary records and, therefore, the said reasons have been invented
subsequently in an attempt to mislead this Court and, therefore, the
special leave petitions ought to be dismissed on this ground alone.
According to Mr. Vinoo Bhagat, learned counsel for the respondents, the
Bank’s financial constraints were never cited as the reason before the
litigation began and this reason has been dishonestly invented for the
purposes of litigation and as correctly noticed by the High Court, the
appellant is financed entirely by outside sources.
It is further argued that the appellant-Bank has not even appointed the
persons eligible under its pruned list and that two of the respondents,
namely, Tridip Kumar Dass at serial No. 4 in the select list of Officers
and Alekha Prasad Behera at serial No. 3 in the select list of Field
Supervisors were entitled to appointment even if the indent stood reduced
to 14 Officers and 11 Field Supervisors and the fact that they have not
been appointed makes it clear that the appellant’s case is entirely
dishonest. He would further urge that since the appellant-Bank did not
challenge that judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court dated
14.09.1993 that judgment attained finality and it is the abuse of the
process of the Court to try and fault with the judgment in the present
matters.
The appellant-Bank filed rejoinder affidavit denying the allegations made
in the counter affidavit. The Chairman of the Bank has also filed an
affidavit on 10.04.2002 pursuant to the order dated 12.01.1996 of this
Court. The said order Dated 12.01.1996 reads thus :
"Leave granted.
Printing of appeals dispensed with. Appeals will be heard on the SLP paper
books with liberty to file additional papers, if any, within ten weeks.
The petitioners will make appointmetns on the posts as indicated in their
last indent on the basis of the merit list sent by the BSRB (respondent No.
4). In respect of the additional persons whose names have been recommended
by respondent No. 4 for appointment with the petitioners, it will be open
to the respondent No. 4 to proceed on the lines similar to the guidelines
contained in the letter dated 31.3.1993, annexure O to the SLPs with regard
to recruitment to the clerical cadre persons in regional rural banks."
It was submitted that pursuant to the above order, appointment orders were
issued to 9 Field Supervisors and 14 Officers and 2 Field Supervisors had
already been appointed pursuant to the judgment of the High Court dated
08.11.1991 and 18.11.1991 in O.J.C. No. 1265 and O.J.C. No. 6506. It was
further stated therein that the appellant-Bank has also advised the BSRB.
Bhubaneswar to take care of the candidates as per direction dated
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11
12.01.1996 of this Court and as such the dossiers in respect of 11 Officers
and 19 Field Supervisors which were in excess of the Bank’s last indent
were returned. It was also submitted in the affidavit that out of 30
candidates, 23 appointment orders were issued by them, 5 Officers/Field
Supervisors have joined the appellant-Bank on 10.04.1996. It was further
submitted that at the relevant time, there is no vacancy in any cadre in
the appellant-Bank and as per the Government of India’s revised guidelines,
the appellant-Bank is identified as having surplus man-power and that the
accumulated loss of the bank as on 31.03.2001 was Rs. 39.69 crores and the
Bank is not in a position to absorb any more additional establishment cost.
This affidavit was verified on 10.04.2002 and signed by the Chairman of the
Bank. On the above pleadings, the following questions of law would emerge
for consideration :
(a) Whether the respondents/writ petitioners had acquired any
idefeasible right to be appointed to the posts in question, when the
decision taken by the appellant-Bank not to fill up all the vacancies is
based on bona fide and appropriate reasons;
(b) Whether the appellant-Bank is under any legal obligation or legal
duty to fill up any or all of the vacancies;
(c) Whether the appellant-Bank is entitled to revise their indents
submitted to the BSRB long before the publication of the results by the
BSRB in view of financial crisis as stated in the grounds of special leave
petition and
(d) Whether the basis indicated by the appellant-Bank can be
characterized to be mala fide or unreasonable.
We have given our anxious consideration to the points urged by both the
learned counsel with reference to the pleadings, documents and annexures.
The entire basis for the arguments advanced by counsel for the respondents
appears to be the judgment of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in O.J.C.
No. 1265 of 1991 in the case of Surya Prasad Rath and Another v. Baitarani
Gramiya Bank dated 08.11.1991 and the subsequent dismissal of the special
leave petition by this Court on 03.3.1992. In this context, the respondents
has failed to notice that there were two other judgments on the issue one
of the which was subsequent in point of time which accepted the contention
of the Bank and rejected the writ petition filed by the selected
candidates. The said judgments are Ashok Kumar Sprang v. Secretary, BSRB
and Others, in O.J.C. No. 2902 of 1990 (page Nos. 81-89 of the paper-book.
Bikini Bihari Das and Others v. Baitarani Gramiya Bank and Others in O.J.C.
No. 1125 of 1991 dated 04.10.1991 (page Nos. 90-93 of the paper-Book).
The respondents, in our opinion, has failed to appreciate the fact that in
view of the conflicting judgments, the Division Bench of the High Court of
Orissa by its order dated 19.04.1993 made a reference in this very matter
to the Full Bench of the Orissa High Court and the Full Bench of the High
Court by its judgment-dated 14.09.1993 answered the questions and relegated
the matter to the Division Bench for disposal in accordance with the
answers given. The Full Bench while answering the questions has
categorically held that a selected candidate does not acquire indefeasible
right of appointment in holding so, the Full Bench has placed reliance on a
Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Shankarasan Dass v. Union of
India reported in AIR (1991) SC 1612 equivalent to [1991] 3 SCC 47 and
another judgment by a Bench of three-judges of this Court in Union
Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh reported in AIR (1993) SC 16
equivalent to [1993] 1 SCC 154. The only exception made by the Full Bench
(about which the present appellant-Bank made a grievance in the present
appeals) is that the Full Bench has held that a selectee higher up in the
merit list will have a right to demand appointment if a person lower than
in the list has been appointed in any other Bank.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11
The Full Bench overlooked the fact that the advertisement extract (page
38-39 of the paper book) and the paper clipping clearly mentioned the
following :
(a) "Bank once opted for can not be changed later".
(b) In the notes under item one it was mentioned that "the above
vacancies are approximate and likely to vary upwards or downwards depending
on the need of the indenting banks."
(c) From the Full Advertisement, it is also clear in para in the left-
hand column under the head ’Selection Procedure’ that the finally selected
will be allotted to the regional rural bank for which the candidates
originally opted.
(d) Further in para 10(a), it says (right-hand column 1st line) "the
choice will be restricted to one RRB only."
(e) Further in para 10(b) it says :
"10(b) The candidates for posts of Officers and Field Supervisors (posts 1
and 2) should apply in separate applications along with requisite fee for
the respective post. But for both the posts his choice will be restricted
to a single regional rural Bank."
All these clearly go to show that the assumption of the Full Bench that a
Common Merit List for all the Banks is prepared and that a selectee higher
in merit list would be overlooked is incorrect. Further, the assumption
that the procedure/scheme visualises preparation of a select list as per
descending order of merit, would clothe a selectee higher up in the merit
list with a right to demand appointment if a person lower in the list has
been appointed in any other Bank, is also erroneous. No material or factual
foundation was laid in the writ petition and nothing has been found
regarding this by the Full Bench. On the contrary, one of the writ
petitions annexed the Paper Publication of the final results and that
showed that results were declared qua each Bank.
Once the permise of the Full Bench is found to be erroneous, the judgment
of the Full Bench and the impugned order deserve to be set aside.
It was argued by learned counsel for the respondents that the Bank has
stated the aspect of financial crisis/constraints for the first time in the
special leave petitions as the reasons mentioned by them in pruning down
the indent. This statement is factually incorrect. The Division Bench, by
its common order, in O.J.C. Nos. 1866, 2981 and 5052 of 1991 while
referring to the counter affidavit filed by the Bank has clearly stated
that on account of various factors including liquidity crisis, ban order
for opening new branches and on account of financial burden incurred on
account of implementation of agricultural rural debt relief scheme and the
award given by the National Industrial Tribunal, the Authorities had
decided not to fill up the posts though at the time of advertisement indent
had been given. Thus, it is seen that counter affidavit in all the writ
petitions, the appellant-Bank has raised the aspect of financial crisis.
This submission of the respondents is, therefore, liable to be rejected. In
regard to the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents though
the appellant-Bank was bound to disclose the dismissal of its previous
special leave petitions in an identical matter, we are of the opinion that
the same need not be disclosed in the present special leave petitions since
the previous special leave petition was dismissed at the special leave
petitions stage (Annexure-Rl). This Court in a catena of decisions has held
that the dismissal of special leave petition by a non-speaking order which
does not contain the reasons for dismissal does not amount to acceptance of
the correctness of the decision sought to be appealed against. Such an
order does not constitute the law laid down by the Supreme Court for the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11
purpose of Article 141. In this context, we may refer to a recent decision
of this Court in Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr., reported in
[2000] 6 SCC 359 (Three Judges).
In regard to the argument of learned counsel for the respondents that the
Full Bench judgment of the Orissa High Court was not challenged and,
therefore, that judgment has attained finality, learned counsel for the
respondents is not correct in submitting so. The apellant-Bank could not
have challenged the Full Bench judgment because the Full Bench answered the
questions and relegated the matter to the Division Bench for disposal and
the cause of action for filing the present appeals arose only after the
Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the matters.
In our view, the respondents/writ petitioners had not acquired any
indefeasible right to be appointed to the post in question when the Bank
has taken a decision not to fill up all the vacancies which is based on
sound bona fides and appropriate reasons. The Bank is also under no
obligation or legal duty to fill up any or all of the vacancies and that
the basis indicated by the appellant-Bank for pruning the indents cannot at
all be characterized to be mala fide or unreasonable. The law is well-
settled. This Court has taken the same view in the following judgments.
In State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. v. V. Sadanandam and Ors. Etc. Etc. AIR
(1989) SC 2060, this Court has observed as under :
"The mode of recruitment and the category from which the recruitment to a
service should be made are all matters which are exclusively within the
domain of the executive. It is not for judicial bodies to sit in judgment
over the wisdom of the executive in choosing the mode of recruitment or the
categories from which the recruitment should be made as they are matters of
policy decision falling exclusively within the purview of the executive.
The question of filling up of posts by persons belonging to other local
categories or zones is a matter of administrative necessity and exigency.
When the rules provide for such transfers being effected and when the
transfers are not assailed on the ground of arbitrariness or
discrimination, the policy of transfer adopted by the Government cannot be
struck down."
This Court, in a judgment rendered by a Constitution Bench in Shankarsan
Dash v. Union of India, [1991] 3 SCC 47, observed as under :
"Even if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate
number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates do not
acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed against the existing
vacancies. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to
qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they
do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules
so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the
vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of
acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies
has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies of
any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative
merit of the candidates as reflected at the recruitment test, and no
discrimination can be permitted."
In Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh and Ors., [1993] 1 SCC
154, this Court has observed as follows :
"A candidate who finds a place in the select list as a candidate selected
for appointment to a civil post does not acquire an indefeasible right to
be appointed in such post in the absence of any specific rule entitling him
to such appointment. He could be aggrieved by his non-appointment only when
the Administration does so either arbitrarily or for no bona fide reasons.
Hence such candidate, even if he has a legitimate expectation of being
appointed due to his name finding a place in the select list of candidates,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11
cannot claim to have a right to be heard before such select list is
cancelled for bona fide and valid reasons and not arbitrarily. In the
instant case, when the Chandigarh Administration accepted the complaints
and cancelled the select list it cannot be said to have acted either
arbitrarily of without bona fide and valid reasons."
In Babita Prasad and Ors. v State of Bihar and Ors., [1993] Supp. 3 SCC
268, this Court held that a panel, as prepared in the said case, cannot be
treated as conferring any vested or indefeasible right to the teachers to
be appointed. This Court further held as follows :
"The mere fact that the candidates who had been brought on the panel had
been sent for training at the Government expense, would also not imply that
any right had been created in their favour for appointment after they had
completed their training because training was intended to confer
eligibility on the candidates for being brought on the list."
In the case of the State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha & Ors.,
reported in [1974] 3 SCC 220, this Court has observed as under:
"The existence of vacancies does not give a legal right to candidate to be
selected for appointment. The examination is for the purpose of showing
that a particular candidate is eligible for consideration. The selection
for appointment comes later. It is open then to the Government to decide
how many appointments shall be made. The mere fact that a candidate’s name
appears in the list will not entitle him to a mandamus that he be
appointed. Indeed, if the State Government while making the selection for
appointment had departed from the ranking given in the list, there would
have been a legitimate grievance on the ground that the State Government
had departed from the Rules in this respect.
In order that mandamus may issue to compel an authority to do something it
must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on that authority and
the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its
performance
Since there was no legal duty on the State Government to appoint all the 15
persons who are in the list and the petitioners have no legal right under
the rules to enforce its performance the petition was clearly
misconceived." In the case of U. P. Bhumi Sudhar Nigam Ltd. v. Shiv Narain
Gupta. reported in [1994] Supp. 2 SCC 541, this Court has observed as
under:
".......We are of the view that the High Court fell into patent
error in issuing the mandamus in the facts and circumstances of this case.
This Court has authoritatively laid down that even if a vacancy is
available and the employer bona fide declines to make an appointment, the
candidate on the select lilst has no right whatsoever to claim appointment.
In the present case, the post was abolished by the Board of Director in the
year 1991. Shiv Narain Gupta in fact challenged before the High Court the
action of the Corporation in abolishing the post. Neither the facts of this
case nor the law on the subject warranted any interference by the High
Court in the writ petition filed by Shiv Narain Gupta. The Constitution
Bench judgment in Shankarsan Dash case was cited before the learned single
Judge of the High Court. We are constrained to say that th learned Judge
failed to appreciate the binding ratio of the said judgment."
Our attention was drawn to Annexure-J issued by the Government of India,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division)
dated 31.03.1993 on the subject "Recruitment of Clerical Cadre Personnel in
Regional Rural Banks". In the said communication, course of action was
advised to the Chairman of all Banking Services Recruitment Boards to
resolve the problem. We are concerned only with regard to the course of
action II which reads thus :
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11
"As regards candidate who have already been selected for the posts of Clerk
of RRBs but have not yet absorbed/appointed, the BSRBs concerned may follow
the following Board guidelines :
a. BSRBs may invite indents from all the RRBs in a State in order to
make an assessment of their actual requirement.
b. If the number of unabsorbed candidates is more than the indents
received from RRBs they may identify the candidates who fulfil the
requirements in respect of’ age, qualification etc. for posting in the
public sector banks.
c. They may get an option from such candidates found eligible as
stated above, for their posting to the public sector banks.
d. Allegation of the candidates may be made to RRBs/Public Sector
Banks in order of merit list already drawn by the RSRBs and only those
candidates who are coming in that merit list and are eligible for public
sector Banks will be allocated to these Banks.
2. In addition to the above, BSRBs may also explore the possibility of
absorbing the remaining unabsorbed candidates in the RRBs in the adjoining
States through RSRBs of these States, after obtaining option from the
unabsorbed candidates in this regard."
The respondents in the counter affidavit filed by them has stated that the
letter of 31.03.1993 has not been annexed to the special leave petitions.
The statement is not correct. The other letter has been annexed as
Annexure-J and is at page 77 of the paper-book. The letter of 31.03.1993
makes it very clear that the cause of action for the writ petitioners is
against the BSRB and not against the appellant-Bank.
The Government of India Circular dated 31.3.1993, which has been extended
to the present case by order dated 12.1.1996 of this Court, pre-supposes
that there can be revision of indent even before declaration of results and
even after declaration of results and alternative machanism has been laid
down, Neither the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 nor the Regional Rural
Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules,
1988, restricts pruning and/or mandates that of salectee should be
appointed. No rule has been placed.
Learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute the legal position. His
contention was based on the letter of the BSRB dated 28.11.1988 and he
stated that Mr. Surya Prasad Rath has been appointed whereas those above
him have not been appointed. The communication dated 28.11.1988 at page 130
has to be read with the reply of the Bank (at page 109 of the paper book)
where the Bank’s query was about the merit list. Further one thing that is
clear that selection is qua Bank. No factual foundation was laid to show
that within the Bank a lower selectee was preferred. We have already
noticed though the advertisement was published in the newspapers and the
examinations were held thereafter on 20.03.1988, the Bank had communicated
the revised indent by 23.08.1988 well ahead of the intimation of selection
and publication of results. The Bank had bona fide and genuine reasons for
pruning down the indent. If the Banks are forced to accommodate Officers
and Field Supervisors more than their required indent, it will have a
crippling effect on the Bank and public interest will stand seriously
prejudiced as several employees will have to be unnecessarily retained and
public money will have to be expended on them. When public interest
competes with private interest, the private interest will have to give way
to public interest. In this case, asking the appellent-Bank to accommodate
as directed by the the BSRB would cause loss to public revenue. It has been
clearly stated in the counter affidavit filed by the Bank before the High
Court in the writ petition that on account of various factors including
liquidity crisis, ban order for opening new branches and on account of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11
financial burden incurred on account of implementation of Agricultural
Rural Debt Relief Scheme and the award given by the National Industrial,
Tribunal, the Bank had decided not to fill up the posts though at the time
of advertisement indents had been given. Thus, it is seen that the decision
of the Bank not to fill up posts was due to financial crisis. Therefore, no
direction can be given to issue appointment letters to the respondents/writ
petitioners though they have come out successful in the selection process.
The aforesaid being the decision, we would hold that the respondents/ writ
petitioners had not acquired any indefeasible right and the decision not to
fill up all the vacancies had been taken bona fide reasons and directions
as sought for by the respondent cannot, therefore, be issued.
Today the position is that the appellant-Bank has filed an affidavit
setting out how it has implemented the order of this Court dated 12.1.1996.
As averred in para 4 therein, there is no vacancy in any cadre in the Bank.
In the Government of India revised guidelines the appellant-Bank has been
identified as having surplus manpower. The accumulated loss today is in the
range of 39.65 crores.
Pursuant to the order of this Court, three of the respondents have been
admittedly appointed. They are :
(a) Mr. Pallab Kumar Das (OJC No. 1866)
(b) Mr. Alekha Prasad Behera (OJC No. 2981)
(c) Mr. Tridip Kumar Das (OJC No. 5052)
Today 15 years have passed after the advertisement and seven years after
the order of this Court dated 12.1.1996. In view of the settled legal
position, the respondents do not have any indefeasible right.
However, with a view to do justice between the parties and balance the
equities, we issue the following directions :
(a) If, however, the business of the Bank would require filling up of more
vacancies and if he respondents/writ petitioners turn would come as per the
merit list, we have no doubt that the concerned respondents/writ
petitioners would be absorbed in service as per rules.
(b) The appointment shall be made on the basis of merit/select list if
there are vacancies in any cadre.
(c) The select list would remain in force for two years from now.
(d) The appellant-Bank, we hope, will consider the question of relaxation
of age bar in suitable cases so as to minimize their hardship.
We are unable to subscribe to the opinion expressed by the Full Bench and
the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court impugned in these appeals for
the reasons stated in paragraphs supra.
The judgment dated 14.9.1993 of the Full Bench and of the judgment dated
26.9.1994 of the Division Bench of the High Court hereby are set aside and
the appeals filed by the appellant-Bank stand allowed. However, there will
be no order as to costs.