IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
Akash Sethi S/O Ashok Sethi And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Union Of India Rep. By Department Of Financial Service, Ministry Of Finance, 3rd Floor, Jeevan Deep Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi And Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.5317 OF 2019 (S – RES)
Decided On : 16-04-2021
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 226 and 32 - Seeking vacation of the interim order - Whether the writ petition filed under Article 226 is not maintainable on ground petitions filed under Article 32 of Constitution of India have been dismissed in limine on same set of facts and prayer - Whether the petitioners have a right to be considered for appointment in the light of fact they were placed in he reserve list - Whether the action of Bank depicts illegality in the selection process - Whether writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India is not maintainable on ground that petions filed under Article 32 of Constitution of India have been dismissed in limine on the same set of facts and prayer On a requisition made by Grameena Bank Bank respondent – Institute of Banking Personnel Selection 5th respondent initiated selection process by issuance of a Notification calling for applications from eligible candidates - Selection process was to be on scrutiny of applications, examination conducted –
Finding of the Court: Vacancies from the candidates in the wait list/reserve list - Therefore owing to aforesaid narrative; interim orders granted by this Court; existence of list even as on date; affidavit of the Bank and information given under the Right to Information Act, 2005 would all lead to an unmistakable conclusion petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the case, did have an indefeasible right to get their candidature considered for appointment to the posts that they have applied -
Result: Writ Petition is allowed
ORDER :
The petitioners in this writ petition have sought for a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 2 to 4 to issue appointment letters to the petitioners for the posts for which they have applied and which were kept in reserve against the available vacancies.
2. Filtering out unnecessary details, the facts that are germane for consideration of the lis are as follows:-
On a requisition made by respondents 2, 3 and 4 Karnataka Vikash Grameena Bank, Kaveri Grameena Bank and Pragathi Krishna Grameena Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the RRBs' for short) to the 5th respondent – Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, the 5th respondent initiated selection process by issuance of a Notification calling for applications from eligible candidates. The selection process was to be on scrutiny of applications, examination conducted by the 5th respondent and furnishing of names of selected candidates again by the 5th respondent and issuance of orders of appointments by the RRBs.
3. The petitioners herein finding themselves eligible applied to the posts of Office Assistant (Multipurpose) in terms of the Notification issued and the call letters issued for examinations by the 5th respondent. Pursuant to the process of selection, a communication was issued to the 1st petitioner which was identically issued to all the petitioners that their candidature is found to be in the reserved list which has been kept to the extent of 25% of the vacancies under each post and category subject to availability of candidates. It was further indicated that reserve list would expire automatically on completion of one year from the date of provisional allotment i.e., on 31-01-2019 or until a fresh allotment is made whichever would be earlier. Thus, the petitioners were notified for having been placed in the reserve list by the 5th respondent. When no proceedings further to placing the petitioners in the reserve list took place, the petitioners approached this Court in the subject writ petition on 29-01-2019 as the provisional allotment made was to expire on 31-01-2019.
4. This Court by a detailed order dated 30-01-2019 directed that the list will not expire on 31-01-2019. The said interim order is in operation even as on date. After the grant of interim order, the respondent-RRBs filed applications seeking vacation of the interim order, which were directed to be heard along with the main writ petition as vacating the interim order would render the writ petition infructuous. Subsequent to the aforesaid interim order, several proceedings took place before this Court and this Court directed the Bank to file an affidavit with regard to number of vacancies notified and the number of vacancies unfilled. The Bank filed an affidavit with regard to vacancies existing after the aforesaid recruitment process. It is on this premise, the petitioners are seeking a mandamus to appoint them pursuant to them being placed in the reserve list.
5. Heard Ms. Sunieta Ojha, learned Advocate for Prem Prasad Shetty, learned Advocate for petitioners; Sri Arun K.S., learned Advocate for respondent No.1; Sri T.P.Muthanna, learned Advocate for Respondents 3 and 4 and Sri A.Ravishankar, learned Advocate for Respondent No.5.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently argue and contend (i) that 25% of the vacancies in each of the posts and category were placed in the reserve list and the reserve list was not even operated; that without operating the reserve list, the RRBs went for a new notification calling for applications which would be a fresh recruitment process; she would further contend that total number of vacancies existing in Kaveri Grameena Bank and Pragathi Krishna Grameena Bank is 344 in all the categories which remain unfilled and in Karnataka Vikash Grameena Bank a total 106 posts are left unfilled and it is
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.