Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It is argued that it is following the scheme of „the Act‟ and „the Rules‟ framed thereunder that the vacancies were communicated to the „IBPS‟ by the General Manager of the „UBGB‟ vide Annexures R/16 and R/17 but it withheld the decision of the Board of Directors on the approval of the vacancies. In reference to the letter dated 13.2.2017 of the General Manager addressed to the „IBPS‟ he submits that although there is a disclosure of 717 vacancies approved by the Board of Directors but on the directives of the „sponsor bank‟ of keeping these vacancies in abeyance that directions were issued to the „IBPS‟ for treating the vacancies of the year 2016-17 as „zero‟ which communication is wholly illegal because the „sponsor bank‟ has no jurisdiction to interfere in the recruitment process or to influence the same.

Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the „IBPS‟ while reiterating his objection on the maintainability of the writ petitions in so far as it seeks any relief against the „IBPS‟ has submitted that the „IBPS‟ simply proceeds to hold recruitment in consideration of the requests placed by the Regional Rural Banks. It is submitted that the vacancies advertised by the „IBPS‟ is as per the request made by the participating Regional Rural Banks for provisional allotment of candidates against their reported vacancies. It is submitted that the respondent „IBPS‟ is performing the work of selection of suitable personnel for the banking service for different posts as per the requirement of the participating Regional Rural Banks as per the mandate given by them and that the appointment orders are issued by the respective Regional Rural Bank concerned to which the candidates are provisionally allotted in order of merit and option exercised bearing in mind the proficiency of local languages.

I would take up the issues so raised and contested by the parties one by one.

In so far as the issue of maintainability is concerned, since Patna High Court CWJC No.4780 of 2017 dt. 07-11-2017 learned counsel for the petitioners while questioning the „Nil‟ vacancy notified by the „IBPS‟ in the notice of provisional allotment present at Annexure P/3 series, have questioned the foundation on which this notification rests, i.e. the letter dated 13.2.2017 of the General Manager, „UBGB‟ and while questioning the said directions on grounds of suffering from statutory violations, they have alongside prayed for a direction to the „UBGB‟ to communicate the correct vacancies to the „IBPS‟ to enable them to fill up the posts in accordance with the advertised vacancies, I am of the opinion that the writ petitions are much maintainable because it is not the independent action of the „IBPS‟ which is put to challenge in these writ petitions rather it is the genesis on which the notice of provisional allotment present at Annexure P/3 series is founded, which is the cause of grievance for the writ petitioners.

The supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the „IBPS‟ itself confirms the illegalities in the action of the respondent „UBGB‟ through its General Manager in declaring „Nil‟ vacancy in the grade of Officer Scale-1 and Office Assistants (Multipurpose) after having communicated 352 vacancies in the grade of Officer Scale-1 and 820 vacancies in Grade of Office Assistants (Multipurpose) to the „IBPS‟ vide letter dated 16.6.2016 enclosed at Annexure R/16 to their supplementary counter affidavit. The letter issued under the signature of the General Manager, „UBGB‟ clearly informs the „IBPS‟ that the vacancies were approximate and subject to approval by the Board. This position is reiterated in the second letter dated 30.8.2016 of the General Manager, „UBGB‟ addressed to the „IBPS‟ present at Annexure R/17 of the same supplementary counter affidavit and which again prays for time to communicate the approval of the Board and the „sponsor bank‟. The same position is reiterated in the third communication dated Patna High Court CWJC No.4780 of 2017 dt. 07-11-2017 12.9.2016 at Annexure R/18 but thereafter the „UBGB‟ has taken a turn around to issue letter dated 13.2.2017 after a lapse of 5 months directing the „IBPS‟ to declare „Nil‟ vacancy because the „sponsor bank‟ has not given approval for the vacancies for the period 2016- 17 although 717 vacancies have been put up for confirmation. The statement of „IBPS‟ at paragraph 14 of the supplementary counter affidavit explains it all when it mentions that right since after the publication of the advertisement on 9.9.2016 until issuance of the letter dated 13.2.2017 never did the „UBGB‟ dispute the vacancies published or asked the „IBPS‟ for any corrigendum.