Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu State Apex Co.Operative Bank vs The Registrar Of Co.Operative ... on 22 December, 2014
Author: M.M.Sundresh
Bench: M.M.Sundresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.12.2014
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
W.P.No.33026 of 2012
and M.P.No.1 of 2012
Tamil Nadu State Apex Co.operative Bank
SC/ST Employees' Welfare Asociation,
rep.by its General Secretary,
Mr.Aru.Sundaramoorthi,
No.233, NSC Bose Road,
Chennai 600 001. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Registrar of Co.operative Societies,
N.V.N.Maligai
# 170, E.V.R.High Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010
2. The Chairman,
State Recruitment Bureau for Co.operatives,
N.V.N.Maligai,
# 170, E.V.R.High Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010
3. The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co.operative
Bank Limited, rep.by the Special Officer,
N.S.C.Bose Road, Chennai 600 001.
4. The Tamil Nadu State rep.by the
Secretary to Government,
the Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare
Department, Secretariat,
Chennai 600 009. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to appoint the Selected Persons in the interview conducted on 20.03.2001, with its reference C.No.36315/Per/2000-01 as Assistants in the 3rd respondent Bank in the post reserved for SC/ST candidates.
For Petitioner : Mr.Kanchi G.V.Mathiazhagan
For Respondents : Ms.T.P.Savitha,G.A.(Co.operatives) for
RR.1 2 and 4
Mr.Vijayanarayanan,Sr.Counsel for
Mr.P.Anbarasan for R.3
ORDER
The petitioner, being an association, filed this writ petition seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the selected persons in the interview conducted on 20.03.2001, with its reference C.No.36315/Per/2000-01 as Assistants in the 3rd respondent Bank in the post reserved for SC/ST candidates.
2. From the records, it is seen that the persons, who are called for interview, were not selected in pursuant to the notification issued. Interview was conducted in the year 2001. Thereafter, about 7 of them have filed writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.26063 of 2004, which was dismissed by this Court on 13.09.2004. The said order was challenged by them before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.4073 of 2004 and the Division Bench of this Court passed the following order on 14.12.2006:
''.... 3. Earlier it was brought to the notice of the Court that though advertisement was issued to fill up the backlog vacancies reserved for SC and ST, but after the written test they were not filled up by respondents. To know the ground for non-selection, on 29th November, 2006, the following order was passed:
''Counsel for the third respondent-Bank is directed to obtain instructions and file affidavit and state -
(i) What is the status of the selection as was made in pursuance to the advertisement in question?
(ii) Whether all the backlog vacancies as were advertised to be filled up from among SC/ST candidates have been filled up or any of such vacant post has been abolished or are still lying vacant? It will give details of orders by which the post, if any, abolished.
(iii) If the respondents do not want to act on the selection already made pursuant to the advertisement in question, it will show specific ground for the same. It appears that initial selection could not be made because of interim order of stay passed by this Court in W.P.No.5241/01, but the said case has now been dismissed.''
4. The respondent/Bank in their affidavit, made the following statements:
''2. I state that the third respondent Bank called for a list of 21 candidates to fill up backlog vacancies in the SC/ST category for Assistants and 3 eligible candidates in SC/ST category for vacancies in the steno-typist post in the ratio of 1:1. Certain candidates appeared were interviewed on 20.03.2001, but the interview as well as the selection of candidates could not be completed due to an order of this Honourable Court in WMP.No.7477 of 2001 in W.P.No.5241 of 2001 dated 19.03.2001 communicated to the third respondent Bank. This Honourable Court on 15.04.2004 dismissed this writ petition.
I further state that eleven candidates who attended the interview on 20.03.2001 filed writ petition No.25144 of 2002 and this was disposed on 16.07.2002 with a direction that the respondents should consider the appointments of the petitioners on merits and on the basis of the interview conducted on 20.03.2001 and pass orders within a period of 8 weeks after the submission of the report by the Committee constituted by the State Government to fix the cadre strength of third respondent Bank. This Committee fixed the cadre strength of the post of Assistant at 185 as against the then existing staff of 236 and this report of the Committee was communicated in the Government letter No.1217/CCI/2004-4 Dated 21.05.2004, thereby abolishing 51 posts of Assistants in the third respondent Bank. The petitioners were advised in letter dated 11.06.2004 that as per revised cadre strength there was no vacancy in the post of Assistant.
4. I also state that the petitioners again filed WP.No.26063 of 2004 for a direction to the third respondent bank to appoint them as Assistants and it was dismissed on 13.09.2004 for the reason that mere selection does not confer any right on the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged this order of the learned single Judge in this Writ Appeal No.4073 of 2004.
5. The State Government had thereafter, revised the cadre strength earlier fixed by it and communicated the same in letter No.1217/CCI/2005-5 dated 11.07.2005. According to this revised cadre strength, the strength of Assistant should be 233 excluding the three posts of telephone operators and Electrician. The number of existing Assistant was 252. Therefore, 19 posts of Assistants were in excess.
6. The Government has thus abolished 19 posts of Assistant by its letter No.1217/CEI/2005-5 dated 11.07.2005. Further, the Government has totally abolished 108 post of sub-staff and has directed that out-sourcing should deploy the work of sub-staff. As and when vacancies arise in the post of Assistant the sub-staff qualified for the post of Assistant have to be promoted. The Government has also stipulated in the said letter that no substitute will be appointed in the posts that become vacant until the optimum strength is reached and that there will be no new recruitment above the optimum strength. The Government has also emphasized that direct recruitment of Assistant should be made only after obtaining the prior permission of the Government.''
5. Now, it is settled law that mere inclusion in the selectee list does not confer any right to be selected even if some of the vacancies remain unfilled. In this connection, one may refer to Supreme Court decision rendered in State of U.P. Vs. Rajkumar Sharma reported in (2006(3) SCC 330). In the said case, various eventualities were noticed by the Supreme Court including advertisement of vacancies more than the existing vacancies; non selection in spite of availability of vacancies and right of a candidate on appointment of others by mistake. Referring to different decisions the Supreme Court, in the case of Rajkumar Sharma (cited supra) held that (a) the vacancies over and above the number of vacancies advertised would be violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution; (b) selectees cannot claim appointment as a matter of right and mere inclusion of candidate's name in the list does not confer any right to be selected, even if some of the vacancies remain unfilled and, (c.) even if in some cases appointments have been made by mistake or wrongly that does not confer any right on another person.
6. In view of the stand taken by the respondent and the decision of Supreme Court as referred to above, we find no ground made out to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge. The Writ Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected WAMP is closed.''
3. The above said order was passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 14.12.2006. After a period of nearly six years from the decision rendered by the Division Bench and more than one decade from the date of the interview conducted, the writ petitioner, being an Association, espousing the cause of its members has filed this present writ petition. It is also not in dispute that the appellants in W.A.No.4073 of 2004 are also members of the writ petitioner Association.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after issuance of the notification and after calling the candidates for interview, without any basis postings have not been made. The members of the petitioner Association, who participated, are poor persons. They have a legitimate expectation towards the post. The earlier proceedings would not bind the petitioner as the issues are different. Therefore, the writ petition will have to be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable against the said respondent, being not an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The issues raised are covered by the decision dated 14.12.2006 rendered in W.A.No.4073 of 2004 in which some of the members of the petitioner Association are also the parties. The writ petition is also not maintainable as the same cannot be filed on behalf of the individuals. It is also to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. A further submission has been made that the petitioner has not placed correct facts before the Court, especially the facts which transpired in the earlier round of litigation.
6. There is no material to suggest that the affected parties are unable to come before this Court. It is settled law that in service matters there cannot be any pubic interest litigation. There is no acceptable explanation for approaching this Court after more than a decade from the date of the interview conducted in the year 2001. The issues raised in this writ petition and those involved in the writ appeal are not different. The Division Bench has dismissed the writ appeal basing reliance upon the cadre strength. It also non-suited the appellants therein on the ground that no vested right, much less a legal right, has accrued to them demanding the posts as a matter of right. The ratio laid down by the Division Bench would in the said judgment would apply with full force to the petitioners herein.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
22.12.2014 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes usk To
1. The Registrar of Co.operative Societies, N.V.N.Maligai # 170, E.V.R.High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010
2. The Chairman, State Recruitment Bureau for Co.operatives, N.V.N.Maligai, # 170, E.V.R.High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010
3. The Special Officer, Tamil Nadu State Apex Co.operative Bank Limited, N.S.C.Bose Road, Chennai 600 001.
4. The Secretary to Government, the Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Tamil Nadu State,Chennai 600 009.
M.M.SUNDRESH,J.
usk W.P.No.33026 of 2012 22.12.2014