2007 Supreme(SC) 1221

2007(8) Supreme 728
Supreme Court of india
(From Allahabad High Court)
S.B. Sinha & H.S. Bedi, JJ.
Aryavrat Gramin Bank — Petitioner
versus
Vijay Shankar Shukla — Respondent
C.M.W.P. Nos. 34881 of 1993
Decided on : 20-09-2007

Important Points
Only because a person has been selected and his name finds place in the select list, the same by itself does not confer any legal right on him to be appointed.
Ordinarily a Superior Court, in exercise of its power of judicial review, would not interfere with the right to make appointment by an employer.

Headnote:Service Law – Appointment – Empanelled person, right of – Only because a person has been selected and his name finds place in the select list, the same by itself does not confer any legal right on him to be appointed. (Para 21)

       Service Law – Appointment – Right of employer – Power of court to interfere – Scope – Ordinarily a Superior Court in exercise of its power of judicial review would not interfere with the right to make appointment by an employer unless its action or inaction is found to be wholly arbitrary so as to offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (Para 21)

       Service Law – Appointment – Interference by High Court – Proprieity – Respondent’s name appeared at no. 47 in panel prepared by appellant for recruitment – Appellant appointed a few persons from the panel even after the life of panel had expired hoping that it would get permission from NABARD for extending life of panel which was refused – Respondent approached High Court which issued mandamus for appointing respondent – Challenge Held, the same by itself did not confer any legal right on the respondent to seek for issuance of a Writ of mandamus – Nor did it confer an jurisdiction on the High Court to issue the said writ. (Para 27)

       Service Law – Appointment – Judicial intervention seeking Delay and laches – Effect – Respondent’s name appeared at No. 47 in the panel prepared by appellant for the post of officers – Life of a panel expired in since 1986 – Appellant appointed a few persons from the panel even after that – Respondent approached High Court in September, 1993 – High directed appellant to give appointment to respondent – Challenged – Held, High Court committed a serious error. (Para 8)

       Facts of the Case :

       Respondent herein applied for the post of office in the appellant Bank pursuant to an advertisement made on 21.8.1984. Appellant Bank is sponsored by Bank of India and its functions are under the control of National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) as also Central Government. On 6.2.1984, NABARD issued a circular in terms where 33% of staff had been said to have been promoted to the post of officer. NABARD also issued a circular on 31.12.1984, which, inter alia, provided for 50% of officers vacancies to be filled by promotion and remaining 50% by direct recruitment. The appellant Bank also issued a circular dated 16.2.1985 to the same effect. However, in the advertisement dated 21.8.1984, the exact number of vacancies to be filled up by direct recruitment had not been mentioned.

       Written test and interviews or filling up said posts were undertaken in April 1985. In the meantime, promotees had filed a Writ Petition No. 5829/1985 before Allahabad High Court, inter alia, questioning recruitment process undertaken by direct recruits wherein interior order dated 14.5.2005 (sic) was passed directing respondent (sic) not to fill up the posts of officers contrary to quota reserved for promotees as contemplated by clause (20) of the Administrative instructions dated 6.2.1984 as referred to herein before. The said interim order was clarified by an order dated 28.2.1985 permitting appellant to make appointment in proportion to quota of direct recruits.

       A select list was published by Appellant Bank on 23.6.1985, in which Respondent occupied 47th position in the list for general candidates. Out of this list 26 posts were filled up. Life of panel was only one year. The appellant Bank requested NABARD to extend life of panel but the same was declined by NABARD letter dated 19.12.1986.

       However, Bank in the meantime, Appellant had appointed a few candidates in the new 50% quota after one year.

       Respondent filed a WP No. 34881/1993 before the High Court of Allahabad, praying, inter alia, for issue of a writ of mandamus to appellant Bank to appoint him to officer’s cadre.

       High Court after considering the case put up by respective parties, issued a writ of mandamus to appoint respondent on the basis of said select list.

       Hence this appeal.

       Findings of the Court :

       Respondent was not entitled to get any relief in the Writ petition for issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus. High Court misdirected itself and committed serious error.

       Result : Appeal allowed.