Important Point
The High Court committed serious error of law in issuing writ of mandamus calling upon the appellant-Bank to appoint respondents to the posts of Field Supervisors/Probationary Officers. The same is, there­fore, set aside.

Judgment

Pattanaik, J.-The judgment and order dated 22nd December, 1992 of the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court is the subject matter of challenge in these appeals. By the said judgment the High Court di­rected the appellant-bank to appoint the respondents against the vacancies of Field Supervisors and prohibited the appellant from filling up the vacancies by making appointments to the post of Field Supervisors from outside the list prepared in May, 1984 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2650-55 of 1993. By the said common judgment the High Court also directed the appellant to appoint the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 2649 of 1993 as Probationary Officer.

2. The respondents filed writ petitions contending inter alia that an advertisement had been issued inviting applications for 35 posts of Probationary Officers (Branch Managers) and 35 posts of Field Supervisors on 18.7.1983. The respondents applied for one of the posts of Field Supervisor/Probationary Officer and appeared at the written test conducted by the appellant for selection. On being declared successful in the written test they were also called for interview and finally were included in the list of selected candidates and as such was eligible to be appointed as Field Supervisor/Probationary Officer. Subsequent to the said advertisement the appellant decided to increase the number of posts of Field Supervisors from 35 to 55 but notwith­standing the respondents’ inclusion in the list of successful candi­dates only 25 Field Supervisors and 36 Probationary Officers were appointed. The life of the panel of successful candidates which was to remain operative for one year was extended for a period of six months by the Board of the bank in its meeting dated 28.3.1985. But yet the respondents could not be appointed and on account of disgruntlement amongst the respondents there was an agita­tion and ultimately an agreement was reach­ed between the officers of the bank and the members of the union and the bank agreed to further extend the life of the panel until all persons included in the list are absorbed. This agreement was reached on 16-10-1985. But in spite of the aforesaid agreement no appointments having been made, they approached the High Court for necessary direction.

3. The bank in its counter-affidavit denied its liability to appoint all the persons who were in the panel as Field Supervisors or Proba­tionary Officers. The further stand of the bank was that inclusion of a candidate’s name in the panel does not confer an indefeasible right to be enforced by way of issuing a writ of mandamus. The bank also took the stand that in accordance with the resolution of the Finance Ministry conveyed to all banks the life of a panel lapses after one year, and therefore, respondents cannot claim any right to be appoint­ed as Field Supervisors or Probationary Officers. Supplementary affi­davits were also filed on behalf of the bank indicating therein that no posts are available, and therefore, question of appoint­ment of respondents does not arise.

4. The High Court by the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that it cannot be believed that there is no vacancy in the bank to the post of Field Supervisor. The High Court also relying upon a notification issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms came to the conclusion that list prepared does not got exhausted after expiry of one year and it remains valid till all the candidates mentioned in the list are appointed. According to the High Court the bank has an obligation to appoint candidates against the declared vacancies and that claim cannot be resisted. With these conclusions the High Court directed the bank-appellant to appoint the respondents as Field Super­visors/Field Officer and hence the present appeal.

5. Mr. Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contend­ed that an applicant has no indefeasible right to be appointed even if he is selected and included in the me