Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.

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.

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.

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.