- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ashok Kumar And Others v. Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
In 1982, the State Bank of India (SBI) requisitioned 960 clerical vacancies while a consortium of other nationalised banks requisitioned 1,713 vacancies for the Eastern Region of India. Recruitment Boards, however, prepared select lists far exceeding the notified vacancies—placing 3,100 candidates on SBI’s list and approximately 6,700 on the combined list for the nationalised banks.
To address the “mess” created by over-selection, the Ministry of Finance constituted a high-power committee. The committee recommended that candidates on SBI’s waiting list be absorbed into vacancies in other nationalised banks rather than inviting fresh applications. Mohammed Shahzad, ranking No. 2156 on the nationalised banks’ merit list, was consequently not appointed. He filed a writ petition in the High Court; two other individuals sought to intervene and twenty-seven additional persons filed a separate petition. The High Court dismissed both petitions, leading Shahzad (Appellant 3) and two others (Appellants 1 and 2) to file the present appeals.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Recruitment Boards’ practice of selecting candidates in excess of the vacancies originally notified—without issuing fresh notifications for subsequent vacancies—violates Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India.
- Whether the appellants, particularly Mohammed Shahzad (Appellant 3), are entitled to appointment or other relief despite their positions far below the originally advertised vacancies.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court stressed that Articles 14 and 16(1) guarantee every citizen an equal opportunity to compete for public employment. Recruiting candidates beyond the number of vacancies publicly advertised, and filling later-arising posts from an internal waiting list, deprives other eligible candidates of this constitutional right. Accordingly, the procedure adopted by the Recruitment Boards was declared unconstitutional.
Despite that finding, the Court declined to disturb the appointments already made because the affected employees were not parties to the litigation. The bench therefore issued a prospective directive: henceforth, Recruitment Boards must advertise all existing and anticipated vacancies and restrict appointments strictly to posts so advertised.
As to individual relief, the Court noted that Appellant 3 stood at position 2156—dramatically beyond the 1,713 vacancies originally notified—and could not be granted an appointment without repeating the very constitutional breach being condemned. Appellants 1 and 2 were likewise denied relief because they had not filed substantive writ petitions before the High Court. The Court also clarified that the Ministry of Finance, while exercising overall control, lacks statutory authority to recruit bank employees; recruitment authority rests exclusively with the respective Boards.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED.
The appeals were dismissed without costs. Although the Court condemned the Recruitment Boards’ past practice as unconstitutional, it refrained from unsettling existing appointments. Instead, it imposed a mandatory prospective requirement that all future vacancies be publicly notified and filled strictly in accordance with such notifications. The ruling thus safeguards constitutional recruitment principles going forward but establishes no new doctrinal precedent beyond reinforcing Articles 14 and 16(1).
Order
1. It is rather unfortunate that the Recruitment Boards have adopted wholly unconstitutional procedure in selecting candidates for the State Bank of India (‘SBI’ for short) and other nationalised banks in Eastern Region of India. On 19-4-1982, a requisition was given by the SBI for recruitment of 960 vacancies. Equally, other nationalised banks pooled together and had given requisition for recruitment of 1713 vacancies.
2. It would be clear that in 1983, while making recruitment the Recruitment Board for the SBI prepared a select list in excess of the requirement notified by the respective banks, i.e, 3100 candidates were put in the select list to be appointed by the State Bank of India. Equally, since vacancies had arisen to the extent of 6700, combined examination Board for the nationalised banks made a mess in the recruitment of the candidates in excess of the notified vacancies.
3. It would also appear that with a view to clear the mess created by the Recruitment Boards, a high-power committee was constituted by the Ministry of Finance, Banking Division. The high-power committee had gone into the question and recommended that instead of calling fresh applications for the vacancies that had arisen between the date of the notification for recruitment and the date of selection made by the respective Boards, it had directed the Banks to adjust the candidates whose names found place in the wait list prepared by the Recruitment Board for the SBI in the vacancies to be filled up in the nationalised banks. In the process, Mohammed Shahzad, Appellant 3 who was standing at No. 2156 of the merit list for the nationalised banks was not appointed. Consequently, he filed a writ petition in the High Court. Appellants 1 and 2 appear to have filed an application for intervention. Other 27 persons appear to have filed another writ petition. The High Court dismissed both the writ petitions. Thus Appellants 1 and 2 along with Mohammed Shahzad, the original writ petitioner before the High Court, have filed these appeals.
4. It is true that this Court had given a direction on 19-5-1995 to find out whether the Ministry of Finance could accommodate these three persons in any of the nationalised institutions and to obtain their response. It is seen that the Ministry of Finance has only the controlling power but it has no power to recruit any of the employees of the nationalised banks. As seen, it is the Board which has the power for recruitment and that is the proper forum for selection of the candidates.
5. Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution enshrines fundamental right to every citizen to claim consideration for appointment to a post under the State. Therefore, vacant posts arising or expected should be notified inviting applications from all eligible candidates to be considered for their selection in accordance with their merit. The recruitment of the candidates in excess of the notified vacancies is a denial and deprivation of the constitutional right under Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution. The procedure adopted, therefore, in appointing the persons kept in the waiting list by the respective Boards, though the vacancies had arisen subsequently without being notified for recruitment, is unconstitutional. However, since the appointments have already been made and none was impleaded, we are not inclined to interfere with these matters adversely affecting their appointments. However, hereafter the respective Boards should notify the existing and excepted vacancies and the Recruitment Board should get advertisement published and recruitment should strictly be made by the respective Boards in accordance with the procedure to the notified vacancies but not to any vacancies that may arise during the process of selection.
6. As regards the relief to Appellant 3 is concerned, it is unfortunate that we are not able to give relief to him. While deprecating the practice in making appointment in excess of the notified vacancies, we cannot commit the same mistake in giving direction to consider the case of Appellant 3 since admittedly his ranking in the select list was 2156 far in excess of the notified vacancies.
7. In these circumstances, though reluctantly and with constraint, we are unable to grant any relief to the unfortunate Appellant 3. Others are not entitled as they did not file any writ petition in the High Court.
8. These appeals are accordingly considered to be dismissed under these circumstances. No costs.
Alert