Patna High Court
Rajnish KumarversusThe Managing Director, Punjab National Bank
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The petitioner does not have a vested right to appointment and the writ petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner applied for a Class IV Peon post advertised by Punjab National Bank on 07.03.2021 but was not included in the merit list published on 15.07.2021 and was never called for document verification. After a series of earlier writ and contempt petitions were dismissed, the petitioner filed the present writ seeking to quash a rejection letter dated 19.03.2026 and to be appointed to a vacancy that arose due to the resignation of an employee appointed in 2021. The bank contended that the appointment process was completed in 2021 and that the petitioner’s application did not confer any right to be considered for a later vacancy. The court examined the principle that inclusion in a select or merit list does not create an indefeasible right to appointment and relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Karnataka v. Santhosh Kumar (2026 INSC 276). Finding no legal basis to grant the petitioner the relief, the court dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Does a candidate whose name is absent from the merit list acquire a vested right to be appointed to a post that becomes vacant after the original selection?
- Can the rejection letter issued by the bank be quashed and the petitioner be directed to be appointed to the vacant post?
Subjects
- recruitment
- merit list
- vacancy
- appointment
- public sector bank
- writ petition
- administrative law
- vested right
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5872 of 2026
======================================================
Rajnish Kumar Son of Kumar Rajeev Ranjan, Resident of West Gandhi
Maidan, P.S and District- Jehanabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Managing Director, Punjab National Bank Sector-10, Dwarika, New
Delhi.
2. The General Manager, Human Resource Department, Punjab National Bank,
Sector-10, Dwarika, New Delhi.
3. The Zonal Manager, Punjab National Bank, Bihar Zone, R-Block, Chanakya
Place, R-Block, Patna.
4. The Chief Manager, Human Resource Department, Divisional Officer,
Punjab National Bank, Chandpura Bhawan, West Gandhi Maidan, Bank
Road, Patna-800001.
5. The Chief Manager, Human Resource Development Department, Division
Office Gaya, RJ Palace, Rai Kashinath More, Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Siya Ram Shah, Advocate
: Mr. Gajendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Suryakant Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 21-04-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
(i) For issuance of appropriate writ/writs,
order/orders, direction/directions for
quashing the letter no. 2026 dated
19.03.2026 issued under the signature of
respondent no. 5 (The Chief Manager)
whereby and whereunder representation
of petitioner to appoint him on vacant
Class IV Post of Peon as he has 67.92%
of weightage marks but respondent
Patna High Court CWJC No.5872 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
2/5
authorities by holding that on
resignation of selected candidates, next
candidate in merit-list has not accrued
any right to be considered and selected
and rejected the representation of
petitioner.
(ii) For issuance of appropriate writ/writs,
order/orders, direction/directions
commanding the respondent authorities
to consider and appoint the petitioner on
the post of Peon in pursuance of
advertisement dated 07.03.2021 at
Jehanabad as he fulfilled all the
required criteria.
3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that pursuant to advertisement dated 07.03.2021 for
appointment on the post of Peon in the district of Patna and
Jehanabad in the Punjab National Bank, the petitioner submitted
his application. Altogether, 15 posts were required to be filled
up and out of 15, 2 posts under unreserved category was
earmarked for the district of Jehabanad. The petitioner duly
submitted his application before 23.03.2021, i.e. the last date of
application. A merit list was published on 15.07.2021, but name
of the petitioner was not found place in the said merit list and he
was not even called for verification of his documents. He
submitted a representation on 29.07.2021. When no steps were
taken by the respondent Bank, the petitioner was constrained to
Patna High Court CWJC No.5872 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
3/5
file a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 16080 of 2021, which
was dismissed vide order dated 07.02.2024, as not pressed , with
a liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent authorities
for redressal of his grievance. The petitioner filed a
representation before the respondent authorities and when the
order was not being complied with, the petitioner filed a
Contempt Petition bearing M.J.C. No. 3367 of 2024, however
the said contempt petition was also withdrawn vide order dated
12.12.2025. Subsequently, the petitioner again filed a writ
petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 1087 of 2026 and the said writ
petition was disposed of by a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 03.02.2026 with a direction to the
petitioner to file a representation before the respondent no.4 and
the respondent no.4 was directed to pass a speaking and
reasoned order within a period of four weeks thereafter.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
in compliance thereof, he filed a representation before the
competent authority of the Bank, but the same has been rejected
by the Chief Manager, Circle Office, Gayaji vide letter no. 2026
dated 19.03.2026. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is duly qualified for being appointed on the
post of Peon and although 6 persons were appointed in the year
Patna High Court CWJC No.5872 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
4/5
2021 itself, but due to resignation of one person, one post is
vacant and therefore, the petitioner deserves to be considered on
the said post for being appointed as a Peon.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent-
Bank submits that the appointment was made in the year 2021
itself and all the persons started discharging their respective
duties, however due to resignation of one person, one post is
vacant. He further submits that it is an admitted fact that the
petitioner had applied, pursuant to the advertisement, but, at the
relevant time, he was not called for selection or joining. Further
submitting an application does not give any person the right to
be considered for appointment. Subsequently, on account of
resignation one post remained vacant.
6. Having considered the rival submission and after
going through the record, it appears that the appointment took
place in the year 2021, in which the name of the petitioner was
not included in the merit list. Subsequently, one person
submitted his resignation, therefore, one vacancy arose. The
petitioner cannot be adjusted/appointed on the said post. The
law in this regard is very much clear. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in a recent pronouncement reported in 2026
INSC 276 (State of Karnataka & Ors. Versus Santhosh Kumar
Patna High Court CWJC No.5872 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
5/5
C), in paragraph no. 9 has held as follows:-
“9. The above understanding also accords
with the settled principle that inclusion
of a candidate's name in a select list
does not by itself confer an indefeasible
right to appointment. A select list makes
a candidate eligible for consideration in
accordance with the governing rules. It
does not create a vested right to claim
appointment dehors the statutory
framework. In Shankarsan Dash v.
Union of India¹, this Court held that
even where vacancies exist, a candidate
whose name appears in the select list
does not acquire an indefeasible right to
appointment, unless the relevant rules so
indicate. Similarly, in Rakhi Ray v.
High Court of Delhi, and State of
Orissa v. Rajkishore Nanda³, this Court
has held that appointments must
conform to the notified vacancies and
the governing rules, and that a select list
cannot be operated in a manner not
contemplated by the statutory scheme.”
7. Considering the above, I do not find any merit in
the writ petition and the same is dismissed.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
AjayMishra/-
U
Checking your session…