Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
B.A. Nageswara Rao And Ors. vs The Banking Service Recruitment Board, ... on 20 March, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1995(1)ALT587
ORDER S.R. Nayak, J.
1. The petitioners in these three writ petitions,23 in all, were the applicants for the clerical cadre posts and they applied for the same in pursuance of an advertisement dated 9-9-1986 issued by the respondent-Banking Service Recruitment Board (hereinafter shortly called 'BSRB'), Hyderabad calling for applications to fill up 2754 vacancies in 28 public Sector Banks. The petitioners appeared for the test and interview conducted by the BSRB. The petitioners were expecting the BSRB to announce results of 2754 candidates, but the BSRB announced the results of approximately only 1600 candidates in the newspapers on 29-10-1987.
2. At this stage W.P.No. 2608/88 was filed in this Court by 14 candidates who had applied for the posts. In this writ petition the petitioners have sought for a direction to call for the records from the BSRB pertaining to the selection of candidates to the clerical cadre posts in the offices of 28 Public Sector Banks in the State of Andhra Pradesh for the year 1986 and to issue necessary directions to the BSRB to fill up the total number of 2754 vacancies after announcing their results. The petitioners have further sought for a direction to the BSRB not to conduct any further selection process in the said 28 public Sector Banks in the State of Andhra Pradesh until all the 2754 vacancies of the year 1986 are filled up.
3. In the year 1989 when the BSRB again proceeded to call for applications from the qualified candidates to fill up certain vacancies in the Public Sector Banks by issuing a notification dated 19-1-89, Writ Petition No. 12149 of 1989 and Writ Petition No. 15082 of 1989 were filed in this Court and in these two writ petitions the petitioners have sought for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent BSRB to appoint the petitioners therein as clerks/typists by filling up all the posts notified in the notification issued in the year 1986 and by following the rules of reservation and to declare that the subsequent notification issued on 19-1-1989 calling for applications as illegal, void, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.
4. The respondent-BSRB has filed a detailed counter in each of these three writ petitions. The petitioners in W.P. No. 2608/88 have also filed a reply affidavit to the counter filed by the BSRB.
5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Sri L. Ravi Chander, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No. 2608/88 led the argument. Sri Ravi Chander, the learned Counsel contended that the BSRB having announced 2754 posts is estopped from restricting the recruitment to only 1600 candidates. The learned Counsel contended that it was not open for the BSRB to unilaterally reduce the number of vacancies to nearly half that was earlier announced and this was a highly arbitrary action and therefore was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Next, the learned Counsel contended that according to the BSRB the number of posts had been reduced in pursuance of the guidelines issued by the Government of India and if that is so it should be noted that it is not for the Government of India to decide the number of vacancies to be filled up by the Public Sector Banks and the Public Sector Banks are instrumentalities of the State and that they should act on their own accord and they should alone decide the number of vacancies. Thirdly, the learned counsel contended that the action of the BSRB in reducing the total number of vacancies drastically without notice to the petitioners is violative of the principles of natural justice. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No. 12149/89 and W.P.No. 15082/89 adopted the argument advanced by Sri L. Ravi Chander. The learned counsel further contended that the select list prepared by the BSRB is not in conformity with the rules of reservations. On the other hand Sri Ramesh the learned standing counsel for the respondent-BSRB would contend that the petitioners have no legal right to insist that they should be appointed to the clerical cadre posts and therefore the writ petitions are incompetent and misconceived. He would highlight that it is always permissible for the BSRB to reduce the number of vacancies for the purpose of selection depending upon the indents placed by the concerned Public Sector Banks. The learned counsel would maintain that none of the legal rights or Constitutional rights of the petitioners are impaired by the action of the BSRB in reducing the total number of vacancies. Meeting the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners in W.P. No. 12149 of 1989 and W.P.No. 15082 of 1989, Sri Ramesh the learned counsel would submit that the select lis was prepared in perfect conformity with the provisions of the relevant statutory rules providing reservation in favour of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes.
6. The BSRB was constituted in accordance with the scheme prepared by the Government of India for the purpose of directly recruiting the clerical staff and allied staff, as well as officers staff of different categories of the Public Sector Banks. The BSRB has been constituted with a view to verify and standardize the process and procedures for recruitment of personnel for appointment in the Public Sector Banks. It has been established in accordance with the instructions given by the Central Government and is functioning particularly on the basis of policy/instructions issued by the Central Government from time to time. The BSRB conducts examinations/selection process for recruiting personnel in the Public Sector Banks indented to it based on the procedure evolved in accordance with the principles laid down by the Central Government from time to time.
7. The usual procedure followed by the BSRB in the matter of recruitment of personnel for Public Sector Banks is that banks indent for recruitment of personnel indicating the particular category of personnel required by them. On the basis of the indent received by it, the BSRB issues an advertisement in daily newspapers calling for applications in accordance with the specifications contained in the indents and in accordance with the general principles laid down by the Government of India from time to time. Final selection of the candidates is made by the BSRB. In the case of recruitment of clerical staff the usual procedure followed by the BSRB is that on receipt of indent from a Public Sector Bank, the BSRB issues advertisement in newspapers informing its intention to hold written examination followed by an interview. The candidates are asked to submit their application forms in the prescribed format.
8. The averments made in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-BSRB disclose that the BSRB issued an advertisement on 9-9-1986 in the newspapers calling for applications for the clerical cadre posts of clerks, typists, steno-typists, Agricultural clerks, Pharmacists in the offices of 28 Public Sector Banks in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The approximate number of vacancies indicated in the advertisement was 2754. The advertisement issued on 9-9-1986 indicating the approximate number of vacancies was on the basis of the vacancies initially given by the banks. The vacancies confirmed by the said 28 banks was 2663. Based on the indents confirmed by the various Public Sector Banks for 2663 vacancies, the BSRB conducted the written test for the eligible candidates on 4-1-1987. It is relevant to note that generally the banks increase or decrease even their confirmed indents.
9. Government of India brought about a policy restricting recruitment in Public Sector Banks. The Government of India (Ministry of Finance) in its letter dated 1-1-1987 addressed to all the Chief Executives of the Public Sector Banks directed the latter to ensure that the staff growth, covering all categories of staff, does not exceed 1% or 1.5% per annum, for the remaining period of the VII Five Year Plan taking the actual staff positions on 31-12-1986 as the base. The Public Sector Banks were informed that the indents for additional staff should be worked out in the light of the guidelines issued by the Government of India and placed with the BSRB concerned only after they are cleared by the Board of the Bank. The Public Sector Banks were also informed that the indents already placed may also be reviewed in accordance with the norms laid down in the guidelines contained in the letter dated 1-1-1987 referred to supra and that the bank should limit their recruitment to the actual requirements after the review.
10. As a result the various Public Sector Banks drastically reduced their confirmed indents with the BSRB. One of the banks, namely, the Andhra Bank which had confirmed an indent of 1470 posts had expressed its inability to fill up even a single post vide its letter dated 31-7-1986. As a consequence, the BSRB was asked to declare the final results restricting only to 828 posts. The BSRB took up the matter with the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, relaxed its restriction policy of recruitment and permission was given to the BSRB to declare the results of 1834 posts. The breakup of the said 1834 posts is as under:
General - 971 Physically Handicapped - 44 Ex-Servicemen - 191 Scheduled Caste - 267 Scheduled Tribe - 361______ 1834 ______
11. Of these 1834 posts, results were declared for 1595 posts and allotment was made for a total of 1585 posts in November, 1987. The deficit of 249 posts included the following:
(a) ST candidates - 232 (236 - 4 posts reserved for ST
allotted to General candidates
in Punjab National Bank)
(b) Ex-Servicemen - 7
(c) Posts reserved on directions
of High Court - 3
(d) Posts for which indents
were placed but advertise-
ment was not issued - 5 (i.e. 2 posts Hindi-Typists,
2 posts for Hindi Steno-
graphers and 1 Telephone
operators)
(e) SC candidates - 2
______
249
______
12. As pointed out supra, the results were declared for 1595 posts and allotment was made only for 1585 posts-
The shortfall of 10 posts included -
(a) Candidates disqualified under Ex-Servicemen category - 9
(b) Candidate disqualified under ST category as the candidate originally belongs to General Category - 1 _______ 10 _______
13. The revised Handbook for Banking Service Recruitment Boards provides general guidance for the operation of the reorganised Banking Service Recruitment Boards, throughout the country. Clause 7.3. of the Handbook pertains to the manner of allotment of selected candidates to various banks. Clause 7.4 pertains to the allotment of reserved vacancies. Clause 7.5 of the Handbook which deals with the preparation of wait list reads thus:
"After allotment of candidates to fill up the initial vacancies is completed, a waiting list of successful candidates upto a limit of 20% of notified vacancies in respect of general category and 2.5% in respect of reserved categories should be drawn up and maintained to meet the additional requirements of banks, if any The wait list will remain valid for a period of one year from the date of its preparation or till the finalisation of the next round of recruitment test, whichever is earlier......"
14. The results of the candidates selected for the 1986reqcrutment was published on 29-10-1987 and the wait list was drawn up immediately thereafter. The wait list prepared by the BSRB was only for a period of one year i.e., up to the end of October, 1988. The BSRB allotted candidates from the wait list on the basis of indents received subsequent to the preparation of the wait list as under:
Month Total Number of candidates allotted
_______ _____________________________________
December, 1987 1
February, 1988 72
July, 1988 127
October, 1988 182
_____
Total: 382
_____
15. As such a total of 1967 candidates i.e., 1585 candidates initially and 382 candidates from the wait list were allotted to various Public Sector Banks from the 1986 recruitment, before the currency of the 'wait list' expired in the month of October, 1988.
16. In the light of the factual matrix of these cases, the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners are required to be examined. At the outset, it should be noted that though the petitioners in actual and real terms seek relief against the 28 Public Sector Banks, quite curiously those Public Sector banks are not impleded as party respondent. there fore the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed in limine for non-joinder of necessary parties. Added to this even the Government of India is not arrayed as a party-respondent though the petitioners were quite aware at the time of filing the writ petition itself that it was the Government of India which was responsible for reducing the total number of vacancies. At this juncture it should be noted that the BSRB is only a recruiting agency and calls for applications from eligible candidates in accordance with the specifications contained in the indents received from various Public Sector Banks and when these indents are withdrawn by the Banks, the BSRB has necessarily to restrict the recruitment to the actual number of vacancies available. The BSRB is required to act in accordance with the indents issued by the Public Sector Banks as well as the guidelines that may be issued by the Government of India from time to time. Therefore, it cannot be said that the action of the BSRB in reducing the number of vacancies in pursuance of the revised indents placed by the public sector Banks and in pursuance of the guidelines issued by the Government of India vide its letter dated 1-1-1987 is arbitrary, unreasonable, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also relevant to note that the BSRB has no say in the matter when some of the indents placed by the Public Sector Banks are withdraw. It is not open to the BSRB to command the Public Sector Banks legally to stick on to the number of posts indented by them on earlier occasion. Recruitment is a managerial function of the Public Sector Banks. Therefore, it is always open to them either to increase or to reduce the vacancies and there is no legally vested right in the petitioners-applicants to the posts to compel that the bank should fill up all the posts advertised in the notification.
17. Mere participation of the petitioners in the selection process initiated by the respondent- BSRB does not vest in them any legally enforceable right to command the BSRB that it should make a select list of 2754 candidates as originally notified or to command that 28 Public Sector Banks should fill up all the 2754 vacancies originally notified. It is settled position in law that the mere inclusion in the list of selected candidates does not create a right in a person included in the list to get himself appointed irrespective of the existence of vacancies. Further, in spite of vacancies available, it is always open to the appointing authority to appoint out of the list of selected candidates only such number of persons according to its requirement. A person included in the list has no right to compel the appointing authority to appoint all the persons included in the list. In the present cases, firstly the petitioners do not find a place in the select list prepared by the BSRB. Assuming that the petitioners are entitled to be included in the select list of 2754 candidates, then again they do not have any vested right to compel the Managements of the 28 Public Sector Banks to appoint them to the clerical cadre posts. In this connection a decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India rendered in the case of Shankarasan Dash v. Union of India, 1992 (II) LLJ 18 (SC) may be noted. In that case the Supreme Court ruled that a candidate does not get a right for appointment by mere inclusion of his name in the select list and such a candidate is included in the select list cannot claim that he had acquired a right to be appointed against the vacancy arising later.
18. There is no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the action of the BSRB in reducing the number of vacancies without notifying the petitioners is violative of principles of natural justice. As already held that mere participation of the petitioners in the selection process initiated by the BSRB does not vest in them any legal right and if that is so reduction of number of vacancies, that too, before completion of selection process does not violate any of the interests or right of the petitioners.
19. Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No. 12149 of 1989 and W.P.No. 15082 of 1989 that the candidates belonging to the open category were deprived of their appointment and excessive reservations were provided to the reserved categories of candidates, it should be noted at the outset that the respondent-BSRB recruits the candidates on the basis of the specifications in the indent received by it from the Public Sector Banks. Percentage of reservation as mentioned in the advertisement was 15% for Scheduled Castes; 6% for Scheduled Tribes and 14.5% for Ex-servicemen and 1% for Orthopedicalty Handicapped. It is for the Public Sector Banks to decide its requirement and the respondent-BSRB which is only a recruiting agency has no say in the matter. In the counter filed by the BSRB it is stated that it selected 1967 candidates for the 1986 recruitment and the actual breakup of 1967 candidates allotted to various Public Sector Banks as given in the counter is as under.
General . -- 1186 S.C. -- 371 S.T. -- 25 Ex-Servicemen -- 225 O.H -- 60 -- 967 ______ 1967 ______
20. The grievance made by the petitioners in these two writ petitions need not be pursued further in the absence of the concerned Public Sector Banks. Ultimately it is for the concerned Public Sector Banks to decide as to how many candidates it wants to recruit in the reserved category based on the back log percentage of reservation etc., Since the petitioners have not impleaded the Public Sector Banks as party-respondents, the questions raised in the writ petitions relating to appointments of the candidates belonging to the reserved categories cannot be gone into.
21. In the result and for the foregoing reasons I do not find any merit in these three writ petitions. They fail and they are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.