IMPORTANT POINT
A person selected in pursuance of an advertisement for selection does not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed to the posts in question, when the decision taken by the Bank not to fill up all the vacancies is based on bonafides and appropriate reasons.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW-Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976-Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules 1988-Selections-Specific vacancies were intimated by Gramya Banks for appointment to posts of Field Supervisors and Officers-Banking Service Recruitment Bank issued an advertisement in newspapers and common entrance test was held-Bank in view of financial crisis revised their indents reducing number of vacancies and submitted to Banking Board long before publication of results-However Banking Board issued letters of selection based on original indent submitted by the Bank-Whether selected candidates can be denied orders of appointment by the concerned Bank on ground of financial crisis-(Yes)-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 merit list are appointed in other Banks-(No).
       Held : 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 mechanism 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 selectee should be appointed. No rule has been placed. (Para 38)
       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 appellant-Bank to accommodate as directed by 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 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 the 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. (Para 40)
       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. (Para 41)
       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 the 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. (Para 44)

JUDGMENT

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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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 of 18.11.1987 another revised indent was submitted, wherein the requirements were as follows:-

Officers Cadre ... 36

Field Supervisors ... 30

5. 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

6. 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:

(a) the Bank incurred loss of more than Rs. 7 crores;

(b) the target in the various anti-poverty programmes could not be met on account 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 .

7. 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.

8. 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 t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 879

IMPORTANT POINTA person selected in pursuance of an advertisement for selection does not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed to the posts in question, when the decision taken by the Bank not to fill up all the vacancies is based on bonafides and appropriate reasons.

Cases Referred (14)

IMPORTANT POINT
A person selected in pursuance of an advertisement for selection does not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed to the posts in question, when the decision taken by the Bank not to fill up all the vacancies is based on bonafides and appropriate reasons.