BAITARANI GRAMIYA BANK versus PALLAB KUMAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 571 · Decided: 10-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
BAITARANI GRAMIYA BANK 
v. 
PALLAB KUMAR AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER I 0, 2003 
[M.B. SHAH AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Regional Rural Banks (Appoilltment and Promotion of Officers and 
other Employees) Rules, 1988: 
A 
B 
Appointment-Officers and Field Supervisors-Selections made by C 
Banking Service Recruitment Board (BSRB)-Original indent placed by 
bank to BSRB subsequently pruned down due to financial crisis well ahead 
of publication of results-However, BSRB sent nomination letters to 
candidates based on original indent, published the results and also intimated 
the selection-But the candidates were not appointed-In writ proceedings D 
the High Court directed the Bank to issue appointment orders to the 
candidates-Correctness of-Held: There is no restriction in pruning and 
reviewing the indent even before or after declaration of results-Bank is 
under no obligation or legal duty to fill up any or all of the vacancies-The 
candidates had not acquired any indefeasible right to be appointed to the 
posts in question-However, in order to do justice between the parties and E 
balancing of equities certain directions issued-Regional Rural Banks Act, 
1976. 
Constitu1ion of Indian, 1950: 
Articles I 36 and 141-Dismissal of Special Leave Petition by a non- F 
speaking order-Held : Such an order does not constitute law declared by 
Supreme Court. 
Article 136-Special Leave Petition-Dismissal of by a non-speaking 
order-Not disclosed in subsequent SLP in an identical matter-Effect a/-
Whether amounts to suppression-Held: No, it need not be disclosed since G 
it was dismissed at the SLP stage itself-Practice and Procedure. 
The appellant-Bank submitted an indent to the Banking Service 
Recruitment Board (BSRB) for selection to the categories of Officers 
and Field Supervisors. Subsequently, in view of financial crisis the 
appellant submitted a revised and pruned down indent to the BSRB H 
571 
572 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A well ahead of the publication of the results. However, the BSRB refused 
to accommodate the appellant's request and sent nomination letters to 
the candidates based on the original indent, published the results and 
intimated the selection. The respondents, however, were not appointed 
by the appellant-Bank. Being aggrieved the respondents filed writ 
petitions in the High Court for a direction to the appellant to appoint 
B them in the respective posts. The Division Bench of the High Court 
referred the matter to a larger Bench. In accordance with the opinion 
of the Full Bench, the Division Bench directed the appellant to issue 
appointment orders to the respondents. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the selection/ 
C nomination did not confer an indefeasible right on the respondents to 
seek appointment. 
On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the appellant 
had not disclosed the fact of dismissal of its previous SLP in an identical 
matter and, therefore, the present appeal was liable to be dismissed on 
D account of such suppression; and that since the appellant did not 
challenge the judgment of the Full Bench ofthe High Court that judgment 
had attained finality. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD : I. The respondents/writ petitioners had not acquked any 
indefeasible right to be appointed to the posts in question when the 
appellant-Bank has taken a decision not to fill up all the vacancies, 
which is based on sound bona fides and appropriate reasons. The 
appellant-Bank is also under no obligation or legal duty to fill up any 
F or all of the vacancies and that the basis indicated by the appellant-
Bank for pruning down the indents cannot at all be characterized to be 
ma/a fide or unreasonable. [586-E) 
State of A. P. v. Sadanandam, AIR (1989) SC 2060; Shankarsan Dash 
v. Union of India, [19911 3 SCC 47; Union Territory of Chandigarh v. 
G Di/bag Singh, [199311sec154; Babita Prasad v. State of Bihar, [1993) 
Supp. 3 SCC 268; State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwah, [19741 
3 SCC 220 and UP. Bhumi Sudhar Nigam Ltd. v. Shiv Narain Gupta, 
[19941 Supp. 2 SCC 541, relied on. 
2.1. There can be revision of indent even before declaration of 
H results and even after declaration of results and an alternative 
-
BAIT ARAN! GRAMIY A BANK v. PALLAB KUMAR 
573 
mechanism has been laid down. Neither the Regional Rural Banks Act, A 
1976 nor the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of 
Officers and other 

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