Back
2018 Supreme(Bom) 1781
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Shantanu S Kemkar, Nitin W Sambre, JJ.
Apurba Kumar and Others –Appellant
Vs.
Institute of Banking Personnel Selection and Others – Respondent
Writ Petition (L) No. 1064 of 2017
Decided On : 05-10-2018
A.K. Bharadwaj, Adv., Akshay Petkar, Adv., Devashish Godbole & Amol Kumeria, Adv., Aniv Argiwala, Adv., D. Deshpande, Adv., Aseem Nafade, Adv., Arsh Misra, Adv., Lancy D Souza, Adv., V.M. Parkar, Adv.
Headnote:
Recruitment of Probationary Management - Selection purpose - Reserved vacancies - Requirement of candidates - Pursuant to selection process for post of Probationary Officers/Management Trainees for year, petitioner’s selection as reserve list candidates and right of petitioners to claim appointment is subject matter of present petition - According to petitioners, respondent No.1 is an Autonomous Body,who is entrusted with duty to conduct recruitment process for post of Probationary Officers/Management Trainees for respondents-participating organizations - It is claim of petitioners that respondent No.1 published an advertisement for recruitment of Probationary Officers/Management Trainees in lieu of requirement of candidates registered by respondents-participating organizations - In view of advertisement, online examinations were conducted and provisional allotment was made According to petitioners, in notice, clause No - 10 about provisional allotment provides for 10% of vacancies reserved under each category as wait listed/reserve candidates -All these petitioners claimed to be candidates who are listed in reserve list/wait list – Held, Supreme Court has observed to extent that respondents-participating organizations were justified in adopting different policy with respect to filling of reserved vacancies - Apart from above, one of issue which needs to be answered is whether there is no absolute right in favor of petitioners to claim appointment as of right? said issue in our opinion is no more res integral - Honble Supreme Court has observed that select list cannot be treated as a reserve list for purpose of issuing appointment, vacancies can be filled up by taking names from list as and when if so required - Learned counsel for petitioners has invited attention of this Court to the, upon appreciation of facts of said case, it is clear that, same cannot be in any case be treated to have decided issue similar to one in present case - In said case petitioner was not given appointment mala fide which is not case as has been sought to be put forth by petitioners in present case - Being so, there is no substance in present petition, as such, lacks merits and same is dismissed – Petition is Dismissed
Nitin W. Sambre, J.
Heard respective counsel at length. By consent, taken out for final disposal at the admission stage.
2. Pursuant to selection process for the post of Probationary Officers/Management Trainees for the year 2016-2017, the petitioners' selection as wait list/reserve list candidates and right of the petitioners to claim appointment is the subject matter of the present petition.
3. According to the petitioners, the respondent No.1 is an Autonomous Body, who is entrusted with the duty to conduct recruitment process for the post of Probationary Officers/Management Trainees for the respondents-participating organizations. It is the claim of the petitioners that the respondent No.1 published an advertisement dated 06/07/2015 for the recruitment of Probationary Officers/Management Trainees in lieu of the requirement of candidates registered by the respondents-participating organizations for the year 2016-2017.
In view of the advertisement dated 06/07/2015, the online examinations were conducted on 31/10/2015 and the provisional allotment was made on 01/04/2016. According to the petitioners, in the notice dated 01/04/2016, clause No.10 about provisional allotment provides for 10% of the vacancies reserved under each category as wait listed/reserve candidates. The petitioners then submit that if the participating organizations i.e. respondents provide vacancies during April, 2016 to March, 2017, the provisional allotment was to be carried out of the candidates from the reserve list to the said reserve members of the organization. All these petitioners claimed to be the candidates who are listed in the reserve list/wait list.
4. According to the petitioners, though there exist vacancies with the respondents-participating organizations, the respondents-participating organizations instead of filling up the posts by requisitioning candidature of petitioners who are wait listed candidates have tried to notify the said vacancies for the next year i.e. 2017-2018 and as such the interest of the petitioners are jeopardized. Amongst other, grounds raised in the petition by the petitioners are they having been selected after qualifying the recruitment process including the exams and interviews, legitimate right is created in their favour to seek appointment on the vacant post. According to them, the act on the part of the respondents amounts to denial of such legitimate rights of the petitioners to get appointment order as guaranteed under Articles 16 of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioners, once the list of the candidates who are put on the reserve list was having life till 31/03/2017, it is an illegality on the part of the respondents in not giving appointment to the petitioners against the existing vacancies. As such, the petitioners, relying upon certain decisions have sought to canvass that appropriate directions needs to be issued to the respondents to grant them appointment on the post which are lying vacant with the respondents-participating organizations for the year 2016-2017. The petitioners have also placed on record the statistics demonstrating the vacancies which were existing with the respondents-participating organizations in the year 2016-2017 so as to demonstrate the alleged intentional act on the part of the respondents in not granting appointment in their favour.
5. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the Division Bench of this Court has already held that it is not State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, as such the petition is not maintainable. Apart from above, according to the respondent No.1, there are no statutory rights vested in favour of the petitioners to claim directions against the respondent No.1 to issue appointment orders to the wait listed candidates. The respondents then claimed that the scheme of recruitment contemplates that the recruitment process to be undertaken separately for each financial year and to sel
