R.K Mahajan, J.:— The petitioner has filed the present petition under Art. 228 of the Constitution of India Prayingthata writ or direction may be issued in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondent No. 5 to appoint the petitioner as an officer in the Alakhnanda Gramin Bank like other appointees from the batch of officers selected on the basis of the said respondent's indent of March, 1989. He has further prayed that he be given seniority in which the petitioner was selected and he further prayed that respondents bedirected thatnothing should be done which prejudices petitioner's joining new service envisaged for the proposed Rural Bank of India at parity with the other appointees of his batch on the basis of advertisement issued in March, 1989.
2. Brief facts of the petition relating to the present controversy are as follows.
3. The petitioner appeared in the selection examination conducted in March, 1989 by the Banking Service Recruitment Board for tentative vacancies which are likely to occur in different Rural Banks. Exact number of vacancies was not mentioned in the advertisement. The petitioner got a letter of selection dt. 31-8-1990, as per annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, from the Banking Service Recruitment Board. The purport of this letter is that the petitioner qualified the written test as well as interview and has been recommended to Alaknanda Rural Bank for giving appointment. It is made clear in this letter explicitly that this Selection is subject to the need or the requirement of the Bank after verifying the testimonials. It was also unequivocally made clear that this letter should not be considered as letter of appointment and was advised that now the Banking Service Recruitment Board has no concern. The grievance of the petitioner is that another advertisement in June, 1990 was floated for filling more vacancies per indent of the respondent No. 5 without taking the candidates from the previous selection from which the petitioner belonged. The photo copy of the advertisement dt. 10-6-1990 is annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. The petitioner has been tirelessly corresponding with the respondents to offer him an appointment and even did not join alternative appointment having expectation that he would be offered job and under the circumstances the writ has been filed that the Banks have filled up the vacancies without giving him employment/absorbing him in future vacancies of advertisement issued in 1990.
4. The respondents submit as per the counter affidavit as well as annexure No. SCA 3 to the supplementary counter affidavit, the merit list of Officers project 89 wri tten test was held on 5-11-1989 and the petitioner Santosh Kumar Sah was at S. No. 12. In para No. 5 of the Supplementary Counter Affidavit it is mentioned that candidates belonging from S. No. 1 to 7 from General category and candidates at S. No. 15 belonging to General category were issued appointment letters. However, since the candidates at S. No. 5 Sunil Kumar Sinha did not report within the time mentioned in the appointment letter, in his place the candidate at S. No. 8 Shri Bimal Jeet Singh was issued appointment letter. Similarly candidate mentioned at S. No. 15 (Reserved category) did not report within the time mentioned in the appointment letter and candidate mentioned at S. No. 16 Jyoti Prasad was issued appointment letter. It has been categorically mentioned that after issuance of letter to Shri Bimal Jeet Singh on 6-2-1981 at S. No. 8 no further appointment letter has been issued.
5. It is further submitted that in view of guidelines/rules and policy issued/or framed by the Reserve Bank of India/NABARA/Sponsoring Bank ramaining candidates could not be absorbed.
6. It is revealed from the Supplementary Counter Affidavit that in the year 1990 only 5 vacancies were projected for the officer cadre and then it was reduced to two candidates and later on it was treated to be as nil, as mentioned in para No. 3 of the supplementary counter affidavit. It is further submitted in the supplementary counter affidavit that there was shrinkage of workload in the Regional Rural Banks on account of Reserve Bank of India direction and implementation of National Industrial Tribunal award on all the Regional Rural Banks. The implementation of the award gave parity of allowances to the officers and employees of the Regional Rural Banks vis-a-vis their counter parts in the sponsoring banks. Thus it resulted into heavy financial liabilities. Implementation of the award stopped the expected resignation of the officers as it gave benefit to the officers. Besides this the implementation of the Agriculture and Rural Debt Relief Scheme also reduced the number of accounts. Further more the introduction of the service Area Approach scheme reduced the scope of Rural Banks as each Rural Bank was allocated number of villages. Commercial banks also made inroads into villages: All these factors resulted in Shrinking of the work load in the Regional Rural Banks and ultimately less expansion of them. Thus it resulted into heavy financial constraint. It is alleged that there factors led into the shrinkage of the expansion of banks also chances of more recruitment and promotion etc.
7. Shri Rajesh Tondon, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should have been absorbed in future vacancies of advertisement of June, 1990, as future vacancies were filled up by virtue of direct advertisement. He further submits that the service of the petitioner is just like All India Service and the petitioner has legitimate expectation to be absorbed Just likeothercandidates from the same merit list. The respondents’ counsel submits that since it was a need based programme, the candidates were to be absorbed per requirement of the Banks, respondent No. 5 and policy of the Government. It is further submitted that exact number of vacancies was not advertised and only tentative vacancies have been mentioned in the 1989 advertisement.
8. We are of the opinion that the petitioner's case lacks merit on the following reasonings:
9. The letter which was sent to the petitioner was only an intimation that he has been selected after written test/interview in the merit list prepared and it was also made clear that it was not an appointment letter and appointment letter would be issued by the sponsoring bank as per requirement/need. Mere selection does not confer right of appointment. So many I intervening circumstances can occur which may not I ultimately give him the appointment. In this case, as mentioned in the earlier part of judgment requirement of the banks decreased on account of guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and less resignations on the part of the officers on account of financial benefits given to the employees of the Regional Rural Banks and upgradation of the posts of Field Supervisors by National Industrial Tribunal Award. Agrument of Shri Rajesh Tondon, learned counsel for the petitioner's that the petitioner should have been absorbed for the vacancies occurring in the year 1990 or in future cannot be accepted because there is nothing in the relevant rules nor in the advertisement to permit carry forward the vacancies. It would be also in violation of Art. 14 of Indian Constitution depriving of future candidates equal opportunity. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited judgment reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 : AIR 1991 SC 1612 Shankarsan Dash v. Union Of India. in which it was observed that:
“It cannot be said that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. 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 or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted.
10. The employer has a right to create the post and to advertise the post but he cannot act arbitrarily or unreasonably pick and choose. The employer has also right to abolish the post in a bona fide manner. In this case there is no pick and choose or arbitrariness. It will be illegal or irrational to hold that the petitioner has been given a vested right of employmentor has a right to get letter of appointment. In the facts and circumstances of the case we do not see any merit in the writ petition nor we see any merit to give a direction that the petitioner be absorbed.
11. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
12. Petition dismissed.
Comments