LexASHOK KUMAR AND ORS. versus THE CHAIRMAN, BANKING SERVICE RECRUITMENT BOARD AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS.
v.
THE CHAIRMAN, BANKING SERVICE RECRUITMENT BOARD
AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 9, 1995
[K. RAMASWAMY ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.]
Service Law:
Constitution of India, 1950: A1ticles 14 and 16(1).
Banks--Recmitment-Recntitment Board-Selection in excess of
notified vacancies-Held unconstitutional-Candidates ranking in selection
list far in excess of notified vacancies-Held not entitled to relief-Practice of
making appointment in excess of notified vacancies-Deprecated.
While making recruitment for the State Bank of India and other
nationalised banks, the Recruitment Board prepared a select list in excess
of the vacancies notified by the respective banks. Appellant No. 3 who was
ranking in the merit list far in excess of the notified yacancies was not
appointed. Consequently, he filed a writ petition in the High Court. Appel-
lants 1 and 2 filed an application for intervention while the other 27
persons filed another writ petition. The High Court dismissed both the
writ petitions against which appeals were preferred before this Court.
Dismissing the appeals, this Court
A
B
c
D
E
HELD : 1. Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution F
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 can-
didates to be considered for their selection in accordance with their merit.
The recruitment of the candidates in excess of the notified vacancies is a G
denial and deprivation of the constitutional right under Article 14 read
with Article 16(1) of the Constitution. [37-F-G]
2. The procedure adopted in this case 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 unconstitu.- H
35
36
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A
tional. However, .as the appointments have already been made .and none
was impleaded, the Court_ is not inclined. to.interfere with these matters
adversely affecting their appointments. [37,G-H]
B
3. The ranking of appellant No. 3 in the selection list was admittedly
far in excess of the notified vacancies. He cannot be granted any_ relief.
Others are nut entitled as. they did not file any writ petition in the, High
Court. It is true that this Court had given a direction to -find out whether
the Ministry of Finance could accommodate these three persons in any, of
the nationalised institutions and to obtain their. response .. However, the
Ministry of Finance has only the controlling power but it has no power to
C
recruit any of the employees of the nationalised banks. It is the Board
which has the power for recruitment ,and_ that. is the. prl!per. forum· for
selection of the candidate. [38·C~D; 37~E]
D
CIVIL APPELLATE .JURISDICTION : Civil ~ppeal Nos. 484-85
of 1989.
From the Judgment and Order, dated 24.11.86 of the ;Patna ,High
Court in C.W.J.C. Nos. 5970/85 & 3389 of 1986.
S.K. Sinha, P.N. Gupta, Shanti Swarup Sharma, Ghanshyam Vasisht,
Ram Swarup Sharma, C.N. Sheekumar (N.P), Atul K. Bandhu, V. Shekhar
E
for Gagrat & Co. (N.P.), O.C. Mathur, Jyls. Meera Mathur for-.TBD & Co.,
G. Joshi, A.K. Sil, Satish Agrawal for the appearing parties.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
It -is rather unfortunate that the Recruitment Boards have adopted
F
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.
G
It would be clear that in 1983, while making recruitment the Recruit-
ment Eoard for the SBI prepared a select list in excess of the requirement
notified by the respective banks, i.e., 3100 candidates were putinthe select
list to be appointed by the State· Bank of India. Equally, since vacancies
had arisen to the extent of 6100, combined examination Board for the
H national banks made a mess in the recruitment of the candidates in excess
• ' >
ASHOKKR. v. BANKING SERVICE RECRUITMENTBD.
37
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 constituExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.