1991 Supreme(Cal) 484
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Altamas Kabir, J.
Goutam Chakraborty & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Central Bank of India & Ors. - Respondents
AND
Sm. Mita Rudra (Baroi) & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Central Bank of India & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Order No. 8281 (W) of 1989 and Civil Order No. 12979 (W) of 1989
Decided On : November 22, 1991
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. K.L. Roy and L.C. Halder for the Petitioners in C.O. No. 8281 (W) of 1989
Mr. K.K. Bandopadhyay and P.K. Tarafdar for the Petitioners in C.O. No. 12979 (W) of 1989
Mr. R.N. Majumdar, Swapan Ash and A.K. Chatterjee for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2
Mr. Ranjit Kumar Chatterjee for the Respondent No. 3 in C.O. No. 8281 (W) of 1989
Cancellation of a panel prepared for recruitment without assigning any reason is arbitrary and illegal.
Headnote:
EMPLOYMENT - Cancellation of panel - Petitioners empanelled for appointment as sub-staff in the Bank after written test and interview - Bank cancelling the panel without assigning any reason - Petitioners challenging the cancellation - Held, cancellation of the panel was arbitrary and illegal - Bank directed to give appointments to the petitioners from the panel prepared on 11th September, 1986.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners were empanelled for appointment as sub-staff in the Bank after written test and interview. The Bank cancelled the panel without assigning any reason. Petitioners challenged the cancellation.
Finding of the Court:
The cancellation of the panel was arbitrary and illegal. The Bank was directed to give appointments to the petitioners from the panel prepared on 11th September, 1986.
Issues: Whether the cancellation of the panel was arbitrary and illegal?
Ratio Decidendi: The Bank had adopted double standards by appointing 28 candidates in the general category from the panel in question and some other candidates from the Scheduled Caste category, while denying appointment to the petitioners, although, they had an equal right to be appointed along with those who had actually been given appointment.
Final Decision: The writ applications are, therefore, allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove, but there will be no order as to costs.
These two matters have been taken up for hearing analogously as the issues involved in both the matters are the same and arise out of same set of facts.
2. The petitioners in both the matters had registered their names with the Employment Exchange and on the request of the Central Bank of India, hereinafter referred to as the “Bank”, their names were forwarded by the local Employment Exchange to the Bank, for the purpose of recruitment of subordinate staff in the said Bank. The petitioners belonged both to the general category as well as the scheduled caste category.
3. The petitioners were directed to appear for a written test on 9th February, 1986, for recruitment of sub-staff in the West Bengal region. The petitioners were successful in the written lest and they were informed as such by the Chief Manager, Personnel of the Bank, by his letter dated 11th August, 1986. According to the petitioners, identical letters were sent to all the petitioners. A copy of the letter addressed to the petitioner No. 1 in Civil Order No. 8281(W) of 1989, has been made Annexure "C" to the said writ petition. Besides being informed of their success in the written test, by the said letter, the petitioners were also informed that an interview of the successful candidates would be conducted, and those found successful in the interview, would be absorbed in the Bank against clear vacancies. According to the petitioners, they were also successful in the oral interview and a panel was prepared by the Bank for making appointments to the post of sub-staff against clear vacancies, in which their names were duly included, some in the Scheduled Caste category and the others in the general category.
4. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite the fact that they were all successful in both the written test and the oral interview and their names were duly empanelled for appointment as sub-staff in the Bank, their cases have not been considered for appointment against the clear vacancies. According to the petitioners, some of the successful candidates, whose names had also been empanelled after the oral interview, have already been given appointment, and the petitioners were wailing their turn as per their position in the panel. However, since no steps were taken for their appointment even after about 2½ years, they made representations to the Chief Manager, Personnel, of the Bank, but they received no reply to their representation. It is the petitioners further case that on 6th October, 1988, without assigning any reason, the Chief Manager, Personnel, of the Bank, made a recommendation to the Regional Office, Calcutta South, for cancellation of the aforesaid panel prepared on the basis of the written test held on 9th February, 1986, and the oral interview held thereafter.
5. Aggrieved by such abrupt cancellation of the panel, without assigning any reason for the same, and without giving them an opportunity of hearing, the petitioners have filed the instant writ applications challenging the cancellation of the panel and praying for a direction on the Bank to continue recruitment of sub-staff from the said panel.
6. Appearing for the petitioners in Civil Order No. 8281(W) of 1989, Mr. K.L. Roy, learned Advocate, submitted that the cancellation of the panel, without assigning any reason therefore, was highly arbitrary and illegal and in complete violation of all the canons of natural justice and fair play. Mr. Roy also submitted that having appointed a number of persons from the said panel, the respondents had acted in a discriminatory manner in flagrant violation of Article 16 of the Constitution, in canceling the said panel. Mr. Roy submitted that the panel ought not to have been cancelled without giving the petitioners, whose names bad been duly empanelled, an opportunity of bearing, Mr. Roy submitted that since the cancellation of the panel gave rise to civil consequence, the petitioners were entitled to be heard before such cancellation was eff