http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: ASHOK KUMAR & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE CHAIRMAN, BANKING SERVICE RECRUITMENT BOARD & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT09/11/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. AHMAD SAGHIR S. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  976            1996 SCC  (1) 283  JT 1995 (8)   276        1995 SCALE  (6)364

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: O R D E R      It is  rather unfortunate  that the  Recruitment Boards have adopted  wholly unconstitutional procedure in selecting candidates for  the State  Bank of  India [‘SBI’, for short] and other  nationalised banks in Eastern Region of India. On April, 19,  1982, a  requisition was  given by  the SBI  for recruitment of  960 vacancies.  Equally, other  nationalised banks  pooled   together  and   had  given  requisition  for recruitment of 1713 vacancies.      It  would   be  clear   that  in   1983,  while  making Recruitment Board  for the  SBI prepared  a select  list  in excess of  the requirement notified by the respective banks, i.e., 3100  candidates were  put in  the select  list to  be appointed  by  the  State  Bank  of  India.  Equally,  since vacancies  had  arisen  to  the  extent  of  6700,  combined examination Board  for the national banks made a mess in the recruitment of  the candidates  in excess  of  the  notified vacancies.      It would also appear that with a view to clear the mess created by  Recruitment Boards,  a high-power  committee was constituted by  the Ministry  of Finance,  Banking Division. The high-power  committee had  gone into  the  question  and recommended that  instead of  calling fresh applications for the vacancies  that had  arisen  between  the  date  of  the notification for  recruitment and the date of selection made by the  respective Boards,  it had  directed  the  Banks  to adjust the  candidates whose  names found  place in the wait list prepared  by the  Recruitment Board  for the SBI in the vacancies to  be filled up in the nationalised banks. In the process, Mohammed  Shahzad, appellant  No.3 who was standing at No.2156  of the merit list for the nationalised banks was not appointed. Consequently, he filed a writ petition in the High Court.  Appellants 1  and 2  appear to  have  filed  an application for  intervention. Other  27 persons  appear  to have filed  another writ  petition. The High Court dismissed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

both the  writ petitions. Thus appellants 1 and 2 along with Mohammed Shahzad,  the original  writ petitioner  before the High Court, have filed these appeals.      It is true that this Court had given a direction on May 19, 1995  to find  out whether the Ministry of Finance could accommodate these  three persons  in any of the nationalised institutions and  to obtain  their response. It is seen that the Ministry  of Finance  has only the controlling power but it has  no power  to recruit  any of  the employees  of  the nationalised banks.  As seen,  it is the Board which has the power for  recruitment and  that is  the  proper  forum  for selection of the candidates.      Article 14 read with Article 16 [1] of the Constitution enshrine  fundamental   right  to  every  citizen  to  claim consideration for  appointment to  a post  under the  State. Therefore,  vacant  posts  arising  or  expected  should  be notified inviting  applications from all eligible candidates to be  considered for  their selection  in  accordance  with their merit.  The recruitment of the candidates in excess of the notified  vacancies is  a denial  and deprivation of the constitutional right  under Article  14 read with Article 16 [1] of  the Constitution.  The procedure adopted, therefore, in appointing  the persons  kept in  the waiting list by the respective  Boards,   though  the   vacancies   had   arisen subsequently without  being  notified  for  recruitment,  is unconstitutional.  However,   since  the  appointments  have already been  made  and  none  was  impleaded,  we  are  not inclined to interfere with these matters adversely affecting their appointments. However, hereafter the respective Boards should notify  the existing  and excepted  vacancies and the Recruitment Board  should get  advertisement  published  and recruitment should strictly be made by the respective Boards in accordance  with the  procedure to the notified vacancies but not  to any  vacancies that may arise during the process of selection.      As  regards   the  relief  to  the  appellant  No.3  is concerned, it  is unfortunate  that we  are not able to give relief to  him. While  deprecating the  practice  in  making appointment in  excess of  the notified vacancies, we cannot commit the  same mistake in giving direction to consider the case of  the appellant  No.3 since admittedly his ranking in the select  list was  2156 far  in excess  of  the  notified vacancies.      In these  circumstances, though  reluctantly  and  with constraint, we  are  unable  to  grant  any  relief  to  the unfortunate appellant  No.3. Others are not entitled as they did not file any writ petition in the High Court.      These  appeals   are  accordingly   considered  to   be dismissed under these circumstances. No costs.