ARYA VRAT GRAMIN BANK versus VIJAY SHANKAR SHUKLA

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 593 · Decided: 20-09-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

._,_ 
ARYA VRAT GRAMIN BANK 
A 
v. 
VIJA Y SHANKAR SHUKLA 
SEPTEMBER 20, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND H.S. BEDI, JJ.) 
B 
/ 
Service Law- Recruitment-As per a Circular, 33 % of the posts 
of officers filled by promotion-Advertisement for recruitment-Later 
circular specifying filling up of the posts of officers 50% by direct c 
recruitment and 50% by promotion-By an interim order of Court, 
recruitment restricted to 50'Yo-Select List for filling 35 posts-26 posts 
whereof meant for general categ01y-A general category candidate, 
placed at 47th position in the List, filing Writ Petition, seeking 
:appointment-Allowed by High Court, giving the relief to the ti 
challenging candidate alone-On appeal, held : The candidate was 
not entitled to the relief-Selection and finding place in the Select List, 
by itself does not confer legal right to be appointed-The act of the 
Bank cannot be said to be arbitrary-Appointments were made in 
confirmation with the policy of Central Government and NABARD- E 
Bank as a State cannot be asked to appoint the candidate, ignoring 
the candidates whose names appeared higher on the List-Constitution 
of India, 1950-Articles 12and14. 
'J. 
Judicial review-In the matter of appointment-Permissibility 
F 
of-Held: Court should not interfere with the right to make 
appointment by an employer, unless its action or inaction is wholly 
arbitrary so as to offend Article 14 of the Constitution-Constitution 
of India, 1950-Articles 14 and 226. 
.;...~ 
Appellant-Bank was governed by Regional Rural Bank Act, G 
1976 and functioned under instructions and control of National Bank 
for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) and Central 
Government. Under a Circular dated 6.2.1984 by NABARD, 33% 
staff bad been promoted for the post of officer. Thereafter 
593 
liI 
~- -· 
594 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 10 S.C.R. 
G 
HELD: 1. It is now a trite law that only because a person has 
been selected and his name finds place in the select list, the same 
by itself does not confer any legal right on him to be appointed. It is 
H also trite that ordinarily a Superior Court in exercise ofits power of 
ARYAVRATGRAMINBANKv. VIJAYSHANKARSHUKLA 595 
r-
judicial review would not interfere with the right to make appointment A 
by an employer unless its action or in-action is found to be wholly 
arbitrary so as to offend Article 14 of the Constitution oflndia. 
(Para 21] (601-G-H] 
2. In this case despite certain confusions in regard to B 
percentage of the posts to be filled by direct recruitment as also by 
the promotees, the appellant took steps to give effect to the, 
> 
directives issued by the Central Government as also the NABARD. 
,. 
It is not case that the employer had stopped the recruitment process, 
mid-way and had arbitrarily picked up persons ofits preference. No c 
such case has been made out. For implementing the policy decision 
of the Central Government, the appellant proceeded on the basis . 
that only 50% of the vacant posts be filled up by direct recruitment. 
For the said purpose, the reservation policy of the state was also to 
be given effect to. If the policy of the Central Government which 
was to be implemented in terms of the provisions of the Act had been D 
">t 
given effect to by the appellant, no exception thereto, could have 
been taken. It is not the case of the respondent nor the High Court 
arrived at a finding that the appellant had appointed any person front 
the Select List arbitrarily ignoring the cases of those whose names 
appeared higher on the list. The High Court, therefore, must be held E 
to have misdirected itself in arriving at the aforementioned decision 
as it posed un-to itself a wrong question. 
[Paras 22, 23 and 24] (602-A, C, E, F] 
3. High Court was wrong in its approach that despite expiry of F 
the life of the panel, appointment could/ should have been made. 
Ordinarily, even without any statutory provision, the life of panel is 
one year. In relation thereto the Central Government had issued two 
Circular Letters. Only because the appellant-Bank had appointed 
j..., 
a few persons beyond the said period (presumably on the premise G 
that its representation before the NABARD for extending the period 
oflife of the panel would find favour with the authorities) the same 
by itself did not confer any legal right on the respondent to seek for 
issuance of a writ of Mandamus nor did it confer any jurisdiction on 
H 
596 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 10 S:C.R. 
A the Hi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.