LUDHIANA CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. versus AMRIK SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 766 · Decided: 19-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
LUDHIANA CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BA,NK LTD. 
v. 
AMRIK SINGH AND ORS. 
' 
AUGUST 19, 2003 
..... 
B 
rs. RAJENDRA BABU AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
c 
Recruitment/appointment by Co-operative Bank-Post of Junior Clerk 
and Typist-Conduct oftest and interview-Preparation of merit list-Freezing 
of appointment on account of elections-Ban order by Government on 
appointment-Directions by Registrar with regard to pending and fresh 
matters for recruitment-Few of the appointees seeking a declaration for 
publication of select list-High Court allowing the writ petition-Managing 
D Director of the Bank issuing a select list and wait list of candidates 
unauthorizedly and arbitrarily-Application seeking review of High Court's 
order dismissed-On appeal, held results published and appointment order 
issued pursuant thereto has no legal effect or consequence-Also person 
whose names find place in select panel has no vested rights to get appointed 
,. 
to the post-Hence order of High Court set aside-Bank directed to issue 
E fresh advertisement, conduct, test and interview-Those appointed pursuant 
to High Court's order to be treated as ad hoc appointees with no rights for 
ar.y p;iority or preference or for any claim of permanence-They will yield 
place to newly selected/appointed candidates. 
F 
Appellant-bank invited applications for the post of Junior Clerk/Junior 
Clerk-cum-Typist. Selection Committee conducted the test and interview and 
prepared a merit list. On account of State Assembly Elections, Registrar of 
Cooperative society told the appellant-bank to freeze all appointments. New 
..
Government took over the reigns of administration in the State. Government 
banned all recruitments/appointments/transfers, at all levels. Thereafter, 
G Registrar directed all the cooperative banks to issue fresh advertisements 
for the posts, conduct test/interview, a combined one of old and fresh 
,, 
candidates. Some of the candidates in the earlier test/interview filed a writ 
petition seeking declaration of the selection list and direct appointments to 
be made. High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the publication of 
H 
766 
LUDHIANA CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. v. AM RIK SINGH 
767 
the results of selection and fill up the posts on the basis of merit performance. A 
Managing Director of the appellant-bank unauthorizedly, arbitrarily, in gross 
abuse of his position and in illegal manner issued select list and wait list of 
candidates. Bank filed an application before High Court for review of the 
earlier order which was summarily rejected. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant-Bank contended that the serious irregularities in selection B 
resulted in serious miscarriage of justice to the interests of the appellant 
and the unselected candidates in denying them a transparent and fair method. 
of consideration, assessment and selection of their claims; that, assuming 
without conceding that the selection process was really properly completed, 
there is no compulsion on the part of the Board of Directors to accept the C 
same and the Board had every right, in obedience to the directions of the 
Government and Registrar and even for other valid reasons not to accord 
sanction and refuse to approve the so called selections and go for fresh 
advertisement by inviting applications and make selections in the manner 
directed by the Registrar; that the High Court committed a serious error of 
law in allowing the writ petition with no proper or serious contest of the matter D 
before it on vitally relevant aspects and without even looking into the records 
of the so called selections to find out whether there had been proper and lawful 
selections before issuing a writ; that at least when the nature of irregularities 
and illegalities have been point~ out which seriously undermined the so called 
selection process as a whole, the High Court ought to have gone into them E 
objectively and could not afford to tightly ignore or brush them aside by 
rejecting them summarily; and that consequently, the order of the High Court 
should be set aside and fresh selections ordered, to do real and substantial 
justice in the matter to all concerned. 
Respondents contended that the sel~ctions have been properly held and F 
conducted by the Committee duly constituted and consequently, the High Court 
was right in allowing the writ petition; and that all the relevant records 
relating to the selections have not been produced b

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