Punjab-Haryana High Court
Khushi Ram vs The Banking Service Recruitment Board ... on 4 July, 1994
Equivalent citations: (1994)108PLR219
JUDGMENT G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. Petitioner who is admittedly a member of the Scheduled Caste and who was an applicant for recruitment for the post of Probationary Officer in the Regional Rural Banks in pursuance of advertisement issued in "Rozgar Media" on 16.28/2/1990 has sought a writ of mandamus qua the respondents, for his appointment on the premise that he stands selected by the Banking Service Recruitment Board.
2. Facts of the case show that after the petitioner had submitted application in pursuance of the advertisement issued by respondent No. 1 he and others were called to appear in the examination held in 1990. Result of the examination was printed in Nav Bharat Times dated 9.3.1991. While the petitioner claims that he was placed at No. 1 the respondents have asserted that he was placed at serial No. 3 in merit list. Some of the candidates who had been selected by respondent No. 1 filed writ petitions before this court. Civil Writ Petition No. 3848 of 1992, Ashok Kumar v. The Banking Service Recruitment Board was allowed on November 4, 1992 by a Division Bench and a direction was given to the respondents to give appointment to the said petitioner. Writ Petition No. 286 of 1993 of filed by one Renu Bala was also allowed by the Court on 6.10.1993 and a similar direction was given by another Division Bench for appointment of the said petitioner.
3. Petitioner's assertion is that both Ashok Kumar and Renu Bala were lower in merit qua him and therefore, he has a legal as well as constitutional right to be appointed in pursuance of the selection made by the respondent-Board. He has stated that once this court has accepted claims by less meritorious persons and the order passed by this court have acquired finality, there is no reason for not giving appointing to the petitioner.
4. Respondents have in their separate but almost identical replies raised the plea of delay and also that the petitioner does not have a legal right to be appointed in the service only on the strength of a selection made by respondent No. 1. Their further plea is that the petitioner should have filed writ petition prior to the filing of writ petition by Ashok Kumar and merely on the strength of the orders passed by this court in Ashok Kumar's case, he Cannot be given relief.
5. In regard to the plea of delay, it must be observed that such plea has to be considered and decided in the light of the facts of each particular case. No hard and fast rule has been laid down and no such rule can be applied dehors the facts of the case. What I find in this case is that the petitioner has come forward with a specific case that the persons lower in merit qua him have been given appointment though in pursuance of the orders passed by this court.
In fact while giving appointment to the less meritorious persons may be in pursuance of the orders passed by this courts respondents should have gives preference to the petitioner because he belongs to reserved community and he was having better merit The petitioner has approached this Court soon after the respondents appointed Ashok Kumar. Thus it cannot be said that the petitioner has been sleeping over the matter and for that reason I am not convicted with the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petition should be dismissed on account of laches.
6. Coming to the merit of the case, I would once again observe that the petitioner Stands selected by respondent No. 1 and he has been placed in the merit list above Ashok Kumar and Renu Bala. If all the facts regarding the merit list were placed, before the Court which had decided writ petitions of Ashok Kumar and Renu Bala, perhaps the Court would have suo-moto given a direction, for making appointment according to the merit list To make appears that the factum of higher merit of the petitioner was not brought to the notice of the Court and for this reason directions for appointment were confined to the individual petitioners.
However, in my opinion relief cannot be denied to a more meritorious person when persons lower in merit have been given appointment in pursuance of the direction given by this Court.
7. I am conscious of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in state of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwah, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2216 and series of other decisions wherein it has been laid down that mere selection does not give a right to the selected candidate to seek appointment. But at the same time I am of the considered opinion that when less meritorious persons have been given appointment, it would amount to perpetuation of inequality if a person of better merit is denied appointment The petitioner who is a member of scheduled caste and who has succeeded in selection has a legal as well as constitutional right to be preferred in the matter of appointment and therefore, a direction deserves to be given by this court to the respondents to appoint him given by this court to the respondents to appoint him on the post of Probationary Officer against the available vacancy of Scheduled Caste.
8. In the result the writ petition is allowed and the respondent No. 1 is directed to forward the name of the petitioner for appointment of Officer against any vacancy of the Scheduled Caste which may available cadre of Ambala/Krukshetra Gramin Bank or any any other Gramin operating within the State, of Haryana. Such Gramin Bank should give appointment the petitioner against available vacancy. Respondent No. 1 should forward the name of the petitioner within four weeks of the submission of certified copy this order for the purpose of necessary action by the concerned Gramin Bank. Cost made easy.