Patna High Court
Chakardhari Sharan Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 6 November, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1991(39)BLJR872
Author: Nagendra Pratap Singh
Bench: Nagendra Pratap Singh
JUDGMENT Nagendra Pratap Singh, J.
1. The petitioners have filed this writ application for quashing the results published by the Banking Service Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Recruitment Board') for appointments against posts of Officer, Field Supervisor, Clerk-cum-Cashier, Clerk-cum Typist, Steno Typist in different Regional Rural Banks (hereinafter referred to as 'Rural Banks') in the State of Bihar. The petitioners have also sought a direction to the said Recruitment Board to prepare a list of successful candidates in order of merit, for appointment against the different posts in different Rural Banks,
2. The Recruitment Board issued an advertisement on 8-10-1988 inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointments to the aforesaid posts in different Rural Banks in the State of Bihar. Pursuant to that advertisement these petitioners along with serveral others made applications. Thereafter, a written competitive examination for the posts of officer and Field Officer was held respectively on 12th February, 1989, and 19th February, 1989. The petitioners along with others appeared at those examinations. On 20th August, l989, results of the said examinations were published. Interview letters were issued to the candidates, who had been declared successful in the written examinations including the petitioners. It has been stated that the written examination was held for 200 marks and interview was held on the basis of 100 marks. The final result was published on 30th November, 1989.
3. According to the petitioners but for discriminatory and arbitrary procedure adopted by the Recruitment Board the petitioners would have been appointed in any of the Rural Banks against the posts for which they had made applications. It was pointed out that the Recruitment Board had prescribed an arbitrary bar in the advertisement aforesaid requiring each candidate to give choice for being appointed against any post but only in respect of one of the several Rural Banks in the State of Bihar. Clause 6 of the advertisement, which is under challenge, is as follows:
6 CHOICE OF RRB:
Eligible candidates can apply for vacancies of any number of posts, but the choice is restricted to one RRB only. No change in choice of RRB will be permitted under any circumstances.
4. In view of the aforesaid Clause 6 any eligible candidate could apply for any number of posts, but the choice was to be restricted to one Rural Bank only, It may be mentioned that there are several Rural Banks indifferent district of the State of Bihar and in respect of 19 such Rural Banks vacancies had been advertised. On behalf of the petitions it was pointed out that as the Recruitment Board was holding a combined competitive examination for appointments against different posts vacant in different Rural Banks in the State of Bihar, a combined merit list should have been published and thereafter appointments should have been made on the principle of merit-cum- choice. According to the petitioners there was no rational basis for restricting the choice of the applicants to only one bank. This grievance on behalf of the petitioners can be appreciated by an illustration. Suppose there are five vacancies each in officer grade respectively in Patliputra Gramin Bank, Patna, and Vaishali Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Muzaffarpur. But in view of Clause 6 an applicant A gave his choice only for Patliputra GraminBank, Patna. In the combined merit list his position was sixth. Five persons being above A and who had also given their choice for Patliputra Gramin Bank, Patna, were appointed, against five vacancies in Patliputra Gramin Bank. Patna, Although position of A in the combined merit list is sixth, but there being no sixth vacancy in Patliputra Gramin Bank his fate is sealed; and another candidate B whose position in the merit list is tenth but who had given his choice for Vaishali Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Muzaffarpur, gets the appointment. But for Clause 6 of the advertisement A would have applied for Vaishali Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Muzaffarpur, also and was bound to be appointed his position being sixth in the merit list.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Recruitment Board. It has been stated that the said Recruitment Board has been constituted by the Government of India, Ministary of Finance, for undertaking the process recruitment of personnels for the Public Sector Banks and the Regional Rural Banks. The Board conducts its business on the basis of the guidelines issued by the Banking Division of the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. In respect of Clause 6 of the advertisement in has been stated in the counter affidavit as follows:
Clause 6 of the advertisement aforesaid was provided on the basis of item Nos. 2 and 18 of the guidelines for sub-section of staff in Regional Rural Banks contained in Chapter-XlII of the Hand Book for BSRBs (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Guidelines'). Item Nos. 2 and 18 aforesaid are quoted below:
The jurisdiction of different BSRBs would generally be the state in which the respective BSRB is located except the following:
Name of The BSRB Jurisdiction.
(i) Chandigarh Punjab, Himachal Pradesh Jammu and
Kashmir
(ii) Delhi Haryana
(iii) Gauhati Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur Nagaland.
Tripura, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh.
The effect should be to devise selection system for recruitment in RRBs. in such a way that the suitable candidates from local areas get selected. One of the eligibility criteria for recruitment for all the psts in RRB is domicile of the State in which the RRB is located. Vacancies in a cadre of all the RRBs in a state (jurisdiction) will be announced in a single advertisement and the candidates will be asked to apply for the vacancies of a particular RRB. A common examination for the vacancies of all the RRBs in a state (jurisdiction) will be conducted and candidates, who applied for a particular RRB, would be considered for the vacancies of only that RRB.
As such, there is no need to formulate regions of, zones of recruitment in the cases of RRBs unlike in the case of BSRB's recruitment for public sector banks in some states through BSRBs.
Item No. 18: Choice of A Bank In The Application:
While applying for vacancies of all the posts, the candidates will apply for the vacancies of only one of the RRBs, names of which will be given in the advertisement and he/she will be considered for the vacancies of that particular RRB. In other words, a Board will be conducting a common examination for vacancies of all the RRBs in its jurisdiction, but the selection for recruitment will be for individual RRBs.
Item No. 2 aforesaid also contains an eligibility criterion of domicile of the State in which the regional Rural Banks are located, but the same has not been provided in the advertisement contained.
In Annexure-1 as the said eligibility criterion was found to be violative of the provisions contained in Article 16 of the Constitution and directed to be omitted from the advertisement under memo dated 16th August. 1988, issued under the signature of the Director, Regional Rural Banks, Government of India Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. It is stated that the Board has no discretion in formulating the terms of the advertisement as the Board functions within the four corners of the Guidelines contained in the Hand book. The rationale behind incorporating item Nos. 2 and 18 in the guidelines in the rural orientation of the Rural Banks. The branches of the Rural Banks are located in villages and deal with villages, which require the staff and officers of the rural banks to stay in the villages and to converse with their clients in local dialect; otherwise it would be difficult for the villages to appreciate things. Experience indicates that residents of one region are not fluent in the local dialect of the other region and thus it is difficult for them to function in the villages of the other region. The Government of India appreciating this difficulty of dialect and in order to ensure smooth functioning of the rural banks so that maximum benefits can be given to the villagers in its wisdom has incorporated item Nos. 2 and 18 in the guidelines.
6. The stand of the Recruitment Board appears to be that by Clause 6of the advertisement in question applicants were restricted to give choice of one Rural Bank, with an object that as Rural Banks are located in villages which requires the staff and officers of the Rural Bank to stay in the villages and to converse with their clients in local dialect, it was more rational to appoint persons of the region in the Rural Banks in question against different posts But. I fail to understand as to how the aforesaid object is achieved by Clause 6 a of the advertisement. Even in terms of Clause 6 of the advertisement a resident of the district of West Champaran can apply for any post in one of the Rural Banks in the district of Singh bhum in the State of Bihar the district of West Champaran being one of the northern most district in the State, whereas Singhbhum is one of the southern most district of the State and are at distance of more than 100 kilometres. Admittedly the local dialect of west Champaran and Singhbhum are not the same. Same will be the position in respect of other districts.
7. The restriction requiring the applicants to give choice against any post in one of the Rural Banks only with the object that eligible local candidates from the region in which the rural bank in question is situated are selected, has to be tested on the touch-stone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is open to the appointing authority to prescribe conditions for selection of candidates for being appointed against the different posts The applicants can also be classified with an object which can be held to be rational and reasonable. Reference in this connection can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of the State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa and Ors. , where it was observed;
Classification, therefore, must be truly founded on substantial differences which distinguish persons grouped together from those left out of the group and such differential attributes must bear a Just and rational relation to the object sought to be Achieved
8. It is proper in my view to examine first the stand of the Respondents that the object of restricting the choice to one of the Rural Banks was to appoint applicants of the region where the Rural Bank in question was located, with reference to the provisions of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rural Banks Act'). The statements of object and reasons of the Act says that such Rural Banks were being incorporated with a view to develop rural economy by providing for development of agriculture, trade, commerce, industry and other productive activities in the rural areas. It has also been said that such rural banks are intended:
to combine the local knowledge and familiarity of rural problems which the co-operatives possess and the degree of business organisation, ability to mobilise deposits, access to central money markets and a modernised out-look which the commercial banks have. This basic approach of the Regional Rural banks will distingish it from the co-operatives on the one hand the existing commercial banks on the other.
9. The preamble of the Rural banks Act is as follows:
An act to provide for the incorporation, regulation and winding up of Regional Rural Banks with a view of developing the rural economy by providing, for the purpose of development of agriculture, trade, commerce, industry and other productive activities in the rural areas, credit and other facilites, particularly to the small and marginal farmers, agricultural labourers, artisans and small entrepreneurs and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto.
10. The different sections of the Act contain provisions regarding establishment and incorporation of such Rural Banks and managements thereof. Such Rural banks are expected to transact for granting loans and advances, particularly to small and marginal farmers and agricultural labourers. Under Section 24 the Central Government may issue directions to such banks in respect of matters of palicy involving public interest, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India.
11. From the statements of objects and reasons, the preamble of the Rural Banks Act, which can be looked into for the purpose of appreciating the scope of the Act, and from the provisions of the said Act, it appears that the primary object of the Act is to establish banks in rural areas for granting loans and advances to farmers and agricultural labourers, who cannot approach the commercial banks in urban areas. But there is no provision in the Act requiring such Banks to frame any scheme so that appointments in such Rural Banks are made from amongst the residents of the region, where such Rural Banks are located. Apart from that Article 16(1) affords opportunity to all citizens in matters relating to appointment or to any office under the State which shall also include the different Rural banks which shall be deemed to be 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. This constitutional right can be curtailed only to achieve an object which is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
12. Article 16 (2) is as follows:
16(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, plage of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State.
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of A.V.S. Narasimha Rao and Ors. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. had to consider the validity of Section 3 of Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957, and Rule 3 of the A.P. Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Rules, 1959 limiting the employment with place of residence. After referring to Article 16 it was said:
The claim for supremacy of Parliament is misconceived. Parliament, in this as in other matters, is supreme only in so far as the Constitution makes it. Where the Constitution does not concede supremacy, Parliament must act within its appointed functions and not transgress them. What the Constitution says is a matter for construction of the language of the Constitution. Which is the proper construction of the two suggested. By the first clause equality of opportunity in employment or appointment to an office is guaranteed. By the second clause, there can be no discrimination, among other things, on the ground of residence realising, however, that sometimes local sentiments may have to be respected or sometimes an inroad from more advanced States into less developed States may have to be prevented, and a residential qualification may, therefore, have to be prescribed, the exception in Clause (3) was made. Even so, that clause spoke of residence within the State. The claim of Mr. Setalvad that Parliament can make a provision regarding residence in any particular part of a State would render the general prohibition lose all its meaning. The words 'any requirement' cannot be read to warrant something which could have been said more specifically. These words bear upon the kind of residence or its duration rather than its location within the State. We accept he argument of Mr. Gupta that the Constitution, as it stands, speaks of a whole State as the venue for residential qualification and it is impossible to think that the Constituent Assembly was thinking of residence in Districts, Taluqas, cities, towns or villages. The fact that this clause is an exception and came as an amendment must dictate that a narrow construction upon the exception should be placed as indeed the debates in the Constituent Assembly also seem to indicate. We accordingly reject the contention of Mr. Setalvad seeking to put a very wide and liberal construction upon the words 'any law' and 'any requirement'. These words are obviously controlled by the words 'residence within the State or Union Territory' which words mean what they say, neither more nor less. It follows, therefore, that Section 3 of the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957 in so far as it relates to Telangana (and we say nothing about the other parts and Rule 3 of the Rules under it are ultra vires the Constitution.
In that very case it was also pointed out that "State" shall also include the authority enumerated in Article 12 of the Constitution.
13. Similar question was examined by the Supreme Court in the case of P. Rajendran and Ors. v. State of Madras and Ors. , in connection with a rule, which provided for district wise distribution of seats according to population for admission in M.B.B.S. course. That rule was challenged on the ground that it violated Article 15(1) of the Constitution, which lays down that there shall be no discrimination on the basis of place of birth, and as such, it amounted to discrimination within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution. In that connection it was pointed out that Article 14 does not forbid classification but the classification has to be justified with reference to the nexus between the classification and object sought to be achieved. It was observed:
Considering the fact that here is a larger number of candidates than seats available, selection has got to be made. The object of selection has only to be secured the best possible material for admission to colleges subject to provision for socially and educationally backward classes...if that is the object, it must necessarily follow that that object would be defeated if seats are allocated district by district
14. It may be pointed out that in Clause 6 of the advertisement except restricting the applicants to apply for any post in one rural bank only, no object for such restriction has been disclosed. But for Clause 6 the different banks being different employers, applicants could have applied for vacancies existing in different rural banks thereafter selection would have been made by the Recruitment Board on the basis of merit-cum-choice.
15. On behalf of the respondents our attention was drawn to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Reserve Bank of India and Ors. v. C.N. Sahasranaman and Ors. . In that case provisions in the scheme for promotion of class III employees of the Reserve Bank contained in a Circular of the bank came up for consideration. That circular provided that for the purpose of promotion of class III employees in different Reserve Banks the seniority of the employees were to be considered centr-wise. An objection was raised against that circular that consideration should have been on All India basis. While upholding the circular it was said as follows:
Whether there has been denial of equality of the view of promotion or any constitutional right infringed or not cannot be judged, where interest of large number of people are concerned, in the abstract. Vast majority, indeed the overwhelming majority of the workmen are in favour of the scheme as evolved by the Bank as modified as it would be apparent from the submissions urged on behalf of All India Reserve Bank Employees' Association impleaded as party respondent in this appeal as well as All India Reserve Bank Employees' Federation, Hyderabad. It has to be borne in mind that in service jurisprudence there cannot be any service rule which would satisfy each and every employee and its constitutionality has to be judged by considering whether it is fair, reasonable and does justice to the majority of the employees and fortunes of some individuals is not the touchstone. See in this connection the observations of this Court in Kamal Kanti Dutta v. Union of India (supra).
It was also observed:
But in judging the content of the constitutional rights, the entire perspective of the equality of opportunity here and denial of equal right in public employment have to be viewed in a fair, reasonable and just perspective. Viewed in that light, it is true, there may be individual instances exemplifying injustice by postponing or delaying the chances of promotions of the contesting respondents yet that does not deny them their constitutional right in its proper measure, and the considerations that have weighed with the making of the modified scheme and in the light of the other considerations mentioned hereinbefore, we must observe that with whatever care and objectivity or foresight any rule is framed, some hardship, inconvenience or injustice might result but the paramount consideration is the reconciliation of the conflicting claims of two important constitutents of service one which brings fresh clerical employees and the other mature experience. There has been a happy merger of these two considerations in the scheme proposed and in that merger, no violation of the guaranteed rights of the opposing respondents have occurred.
16. So far the present case is concerned in the Rural Banks Act no scheme regarding appointments in such Rural Banks has been disclosed. According to the respondents, the restriction regarding making application against posts in one Rural Bank was introduced in the advertisement only on the basis of the handbook issued by Government of India containing the guidelines for appointments. Only in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Recruitment Board the object of introducing Clause 6 in the advertisement has been stated. It has already been pointed out that in view of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution it is not permissible to introduce a restriction in matters of public employment with reference to place of residence. Apart from that even that object is not being achieved because resident of one District can apply for any post in a Rural Bank in another District which may be at a distance of more than thousand kilometres. In normal course, I would have quashed Clause 6 of the advertisement being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, but the difficulty is that the petitioners have not impleaded the persons appointed on this basis of the said advertisement in different Rural Banks. Their appointments cannot be quashed without affording them an opportunity of being heard. As such, no useful purpose will be served now by quashing Clause 6 of the advertisement when appointments against different posts advertised have already been made, and such appointees are not respondents to this application.
17. Accordingly, taking all facts and circumstances into consideration, I direct the respondents that while issuing next advertisement for appointments in different Rural Banks they should not introduce any Clause like Clause 6 of the advertisement aforesaid restricting the applicants to apply for posts is one Rural Bank only. However, this direction shall no stand in the way of the respondents in prescribing a rational condition which can satisfy the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
18. This application is accordingly, disposed of.
N. Pandey, J.
19. I agree.