RANI LAXMIBAI KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK versus CHAND BEHARI KAPOOR AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 524 · Decided: 09-09-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RANI LAXMIBAI KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK 
v. 
CHAND BEHARI KAPOOR AND ORS. ETC. 
SEPTEMBER 9, 1998 
B 
(SU.TATA V. MANOHAR AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Se1vice Law: Rec111itment-Life span of panel and select list to be kept 
alive only for a peliod of one yew: 
C 
Constitution of India, 1950 : A11icle 226-Scope of illlerferencl~High 
Cowt should not give directions for appointmelll after the expi1y of the life of 
panel. 
Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976-Section 24-Enjoins the mral banks 
to be guided by such directions as the Central Govemment may after consult-
D ation with the Rese1ve Bank of India gives in regard to matter of policy 
involving public interest-Guidelines issued by the Central Govemment in-
dicating the peliods for which the life of a panel for recmitment would be kept 
alive-Binding 011 the Banks. 
E 
The Appellant Bank issued advertisement and invited applications 
for 35 posts of Probationary Officer (Branch Manager) and 35 posts of 
(Field Supervisor) on 18.7.1983. The Respondents applied for the post of 
Field Supervisor/Probationary Officer and appeared at the written test 
conducted by the Appellant for selection. On being declared successful in 
the written test they were also called for interview and finally were included 
F in the list of selected candidates. Subsequent to the said advertisement the 
Appellant decided to increase the number of posts of Field Supervisor 
from 35 to 55 but only 26 Field Supervisors and 36 Probationary Officers 
were appointed and Respondents were left out notwithstanding their in-
clusion in the lists of successful candidates. The life of the panel was to 
G remain operative for one year but it was extended for six months by the 
Board of the Appellant-Bank which was further extended for six months 
after an agreement was reached between the officers of the Bank and 
members of the Union and yet the respondents were not appointed. 
Respondents approached the High Court under Article 226 of the 
H Constitution of India for issuing writ of mandamus directing the Bank to 
524 
.. 
... 
R.L. KSHETRIYA G. BANK v. C.B. KAPOOR 
525 
appoint them. The High Court allowed the writ petition. against which the A 
Appellant-Bank, approached this Court under Article 136 of the Constitu-
tion of India. 
Appellant contended before this Court that the life of the panel 
expired on 2.5.1985. By virtue of the decision of the Board the life of the 
panel was extended for six months and again by virtue of agreement be-
tween the parties it stood further extended by six months and thus the panel 
expired on 30.4.1986. In this view of the matter, it was further contended by 
the Appellant, that no direction could have been given by the High Court 
to issue appointment letters to the Respondents, and that mere inclusion 
in the lists of successful candidates does not confer an indefeasible right to 
be appointed. 
Allowing the ap11eals, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. From the materials produced by the Respondents, no 
B 
c 
conclusion could be arrived at that there exist vacancies in the Bank. The D 
High Court entered into the arena of calculation basing upon the principle 
that there should be appointment of one ·Field Officer for 500 accounts. 
This process of calculation is wholly erroneous and is not permissible for 
a Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 
[530-F; G; H; 531-A] 
1.2. Inclusion of name in the lists of successful candidates does not 
confer an indefeasible right to be appointed. [532-B] 
Shankarshan Dash v. Union of India, [1991] 3 SCC 47, followed. 
13. Normally the panel of select list should be kept alive only for a 
period of one year in the light of letter dated 30.9.1980 issued by Ministry 
of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) and if any 
deviation from the said guidelines becomes necessary in the interest of 
Bank, then it should be undertaken with the prior permission of the Board 
of Directors and under intimation to the Government in the Banking 
Division. [532-G; HJ 
1.4. The terms of the Agreement dated 16.10.1985 was to the effect that 
list of successful candidates for the appointment of Field Supervisor and 
Probationary Officer declared on 2.5.1984 will be valid for a further period 
E 
F 
G 
of six months after 31.10.1985 and that the Management of the Bank will 
appoint as far as possible the remaining selected candidates. These being H 
526 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
the t

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