Kerala High Court
Indian Bank And Anr. vs R. Jayasree And Anr. on 8 July, 1998
Equivalent citations: (1999)IILLJ447KER
Author: Ar. Lakshmanan
Bench: Ar. Lakshmanan
JUDGMENT Ar. Lakshmanan, J.
1. Heard Mr, E. Subramani, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Anand, learned counsel for the second respondent and Mr. Grashious Kuriakose, learned counsel for the impleaded party.
2. The writ appeal is directed against the judgment in O.P. No. 6138 of 1997, dated November 11, 1997. The second respondent by a notification dated June 28, 1995 invited applications among others for the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier, Typist-cum-Clerk (English) and Stenographer (English) from among eligible candidates in respect of vacancies likely to arise during the year 1995-96 in the Public Sector Banks in the State of Kerala, Mahe and Union Territories of Lakshadweep. 1st respondent, Jayasree, was one of the applicants. According to her, after a process of selection, which included a written test^ .a skilled test and an interview, she was included in Ext.P1 select list prepared by the 2nd respondent - the Banking Service Recruitment Board. According to the 1st respondent, she was included in the waiting list for the post of Clerk-cum Cashier with rank No. 15 in the general category and as serial No. 9 in the general category for the post of Typist-cum Clerk (English). It is her case that the said list was to remain valid for one year from April 23, 1996 or till the finalisation of the next recruitment result, whichever is earlier. 15 candidates from the main list have been offered appointment in the services of the appellants pursuant to the requisition made by the appellants. One out of 15 candidates offered appointment did not accept the said appointment and join duty and that the said non-joining duty vacancy was not reported to the 2nd respondent by the appellants.
3. The first respondent on the premise that had only the said non-joining duty vacancy been reported by the appellants to the Banking Service Recruitment Board, the first respondent, 15th candidate in the waiting list for Clerk-cum-Cashier would have certainly been advised by the Recruitment Board leading eventually for her appointment as Clerk-cum-Cashier in the services of the appellants. She also alleged that consequent on the termination of the service of Smt. T. Remadevi in the year 1996, there is a vacancy available in the service of M/s. Union Bank of India and that the second respondent has not, despite such vacancy being reported to it, furnished the name of any candidate for appointment against such vacancy and that the first respondent could have been offered appointment to such vacancy. She therefore filed O.P. No. 6138 of 1997 with the following prayers:
"i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd and 3rd respondents to report to the 1st respondent BSRB the vacancy of Clerk-cum- Cashier available in the service of the 2nd respondent consequent on the non-joining duty of the candidate appointed from Ext.P1 before the expiry of Ext. P1 wait list and the 1st respondent to take action to send up the name of the petitioner to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to appoint the petitioner and further directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to appoint the petitioner expeditiously and within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to send up the name of the petitioner for appointment in the service of the Union Bank of India against the one vacancy of Clerk-cum-Cashier reported to it during the currency of Ext. P1 expeditiously and within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court and directing the 4th and 5th respondents to appoint the petitioner expeditiously and within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
iii. grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case'including the costs of this original petition".
4. In C.M. P. No. 11138 of 1997, the petitioner prayed for issue of an interim direction to the Bank to report to the Banking Service Recruitment Board the one vacancy of Clerk-cum-Cashier before the expiry of Ext.P1 wait list pending disposal of the original petition. The learned single Judge, by order dated April 9, 1997, issued an interim direction to the appellants to report one vacancy of Clerk-cum-Cashier to the Banking Service Recruitment Board on or before April 23, 1997, making it clear that the reporting of the vacancy will be subject to the result of the original petition. Pursuant to the said order, the second appellant (Zonal Manger, Indian Bank) reported to the Banking Service Recruitment Board on April 23, 1997, one vacancy of Clerk-cum-Cashier. A statement was filed by the first appellant-Bank before this Court in the O.P. In paragraph 9 of the statement, it is stated as follows:-
"In the meanwhile the Central Office, Indian Bank, Chennai in their letter HO: PRNL RECTT 96 dated November 29, 1996 informed the Zonal Manager, Indian Bank, Zonal Office, Ernakulam that in view of the restrictions imposed by the Reserve Bank of India the Bank cannot go in for further recruitment. The Zonal Manager was accordingly advised immediately to take steps to withdraw the request of allotment of suitable substitute as per their letter dated November 20, 1996 addressed to the Banking Service Recruitment Board."
In view of the directions by the Reserve Bank of India, the Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, accordingly under cover of letter ZOE/PNL/NC/902/96-97 dated December 14, 1996 requested the Banking Service Recruitment Board to treat their request to allot substitute for the dropout as withdrawn.
5. A learned single Judge of this Court by judgment dated November 11, 1997, after considering the statement of the appellants herein in the O.P. held that the case on hand is not a case of fresh appointment and an appointment had already been made but the candidate did not join duty. Thus it is a non-joining duty vacancy and not a fresh vacancy to which there is a ban for further appointment. Under these circumstances, the learned Judge directed the Banking Service Recruitment Board to sponsor one candidate from the waiting list to the Indian Bank for filling up the non-joining duty vacancy, which arose in the Bank. The Bank was also directed to make appointment in accordance with the advice given by the Banking Service Recruitment Board and in accordance with law, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated November 11, 1997 the appellants have preferred the writ appeal.
6. Mr. E. Subramani, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the learned Judge has erred in directing the Banking Service Recruitment Board to sponsor the name of a candidate from Ext.P1 waiting list to the first appellant for filling up the non-joining duty vacancy and that this Court has erred in further directing the first appellant-Bank to make appointment in accordance with the advice given by the Banking Service Recruitment Board. It is further submitted that the fact that Ext.P2 waiting list expired on April 22, 1997 was not contested by the respondent. In the circumstances, it is contended that the learned single Judge was in serious error in directing the Banking Service Recruitment Board to sponsor the name of a candidate from out of an expired list. Our attention was also invited to the statement filed by the appellant- Bank that in view of the restrictions imposed by the Reserve Bank of India, the appellant cannot go in for further recruitment.
7. We are unable to accept the argument of Mr. E. Subramani that in view of the restrictions imposed by the Reserve Bank of India, the appellant cannot go in for further recruitment. It is not a question of any appointment of an existing vacancy or appointment in a fresh vacancy. Therefore, in our opinion, the restrictions imposed by the Reserve bank of India will not apply in the case on hand. In this case, the recruitment was already over. Out of the 15 candidates recruited, one did not join duty and this vacancy has to be treated as a non-joining duty vacancy and therefore it is not a fresh vacancy. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the direction issued by the learned single Judge to the Banking Service Recruitment Board to notify the next immediate available vacancy to the appellant is perfectly in order and not vitiated by any error on the face of the record as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant. The restriction imposed by the Reserve Bank of India is in respect of fresh recruitment only. In the circumstances, the conclusion of the learned single Judge is sustainable in law.
8. It is now represented by the learned counsel for the Banking Recruitment Board that pursuant to the directions of the learned single Judge, the Board has advised the name of the impleaded third respondent (Sajina), impleaded as per order in C.M.P. No. 3276 of 1998 and requested the appellant-Bank to appoint her in the said vacancy. According to the third respondent, she is the person, who is entitled to be given the appointment as per the direction given by the learned single Judge. Her roll No. is 27021092280 and that her name has already been included in the waiting list which is marked as Ext.P1 in the O.P. As a matter of fact, the post in question was reserved for ex-serviceman. But, since the ex-serviceman who is included in the list, has got another job, he cannot be appointed. The next chance is for O.B.C. non O.H. Since there is no O.B.C. non O.H. candidate in the list, the Banking Service Recruitment Board has advised the name of another O.B.C.I.E., the third respondent Sajina N.P. D/o N.P. Uthaman, as the candidate to be considered for appointment. Since the Banking Service Recruitment Board has already suggested the name of the third respondent-petitioner in C.M.P. No. 3276 of 1998, the appellant-Bank is directed to consider the name of the third respondent and appoint her in the vacancy caused because of the non-joining duty in the said post by the ex-serviceman.
Writ appeal therefore fails and is dismissed. No costs.