ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS.versusTHE CHAIRMAN, BANKING SERVICE RECRUITMENT BOARD AND ORS.

              ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS.                                                 A
                         v.
 THE CHAIRMAN, BANKING SERVICE RECRUITMENT BOARD
                     AND ORS.

                           NOVEMBER 9, 1995
                                                                                   B
          [K. RAMASWAMY ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.]

      Service Law:

      Constitution of India, 1950: A1ticles 14 and 16(1).
                                                                                   c
        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.
                                                                                   D
      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             E
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

      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]

          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.
B   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]

          CIVIL APPELLATE .JURISDICTION : Civil ~ppeal Nos. 484-85
    of 1989.
D
         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.                                                      A

            It would also appear that with a view to clear the mess created by
     Recruitment Boards, a high-power committee was constituted by the Min-
     istry of Finance, Banking Division. The high-power committee had gone
     into the question and recommended that instead of calling fresh applica-
     tions for the vacancies that had arisen between the date of the notification B
     for recruitment and the date of selection made by the respective Boards,
     it had directed the Banks to adjust the candidates whose names found
     place in the wait list prepared by the Recruitment Board for the SBI in the
     vacancies to be filled up in the nationalised banks. In the process,
     Mohammed Shahzad, appellant No. 3 who was standing at No. 2156 of the C
     merit list for the nationalised banks was not appointed. Consequently, he
     filed a writ petition in the High Court. Appellants 1 and 2 appear to have
     filed an application for intervention. Other 27 persons appear to have filed
     another writ petition. The High Court dismissed both the writ petitions.
     Thus appellants 1 and 2 along with Mohammed Shahzad, the original writ D
•-   petitioner before the High Court, have filed these appeals.

            It is true that this Court had given a direction on May 19, 1995 to
     find out whether the Ministry of Finance could accommodate these three
     persons in any of the nationalised institutions and to obtain their response.
     It is seen that the Ministry of Finance has only the controlling power but      E
     it has no power to recruit any of the employees of the nationalised banks.
     As seen, it is the Board which has the power for recruitment and that is
     the p~oper forum for selection of the candidates.

           Article 14 read with Article 16 (1) of the Constitution enshrine F
     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 candidates to be
     considered for their selection in accordance with their merit. The recruit-
     ment of the candidates in excess of the notified vacancies is a denial and G
     deprivation of the constitutional right under Article 14 read with Article
     16 (1) of the Constitution. The procedure adopted, therefore, 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 unconstitutional. However, since the appointments have already been
     made and none was impleaded, we are not inclined to interfere with these H
    38                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A matters adversely affecting their appointments. However, hereafter the
    respective Boards should notify the existing and excepted vacancies and
    the Recruitment Board should get advertisement published and recruit-
    ment should strictly be made by the respective Boards in accordance with
    the procedure to the notified vacancies but not to any vacancies that may
    arise during the process of selection.
B
          As regards the relief to the appellant No. 3 is concerned, it is
    unfortunate that we are not able to give relief to him. While deprecating
    the practice in making appointment in excess of the notified vacancies, we
    cannot commit the same mistake in giving direction to consider the case
C   of the appell_ant No. 3 since admittedly his ranking in the select list was
    2156 far in excess of the notified vacancies.

          In these circum'stances, though reluctantly and with constraint, we
    are unable to grant any relief to the unfortunate appell_ant No. 3..Others
    are not entitled as they did not file any writ petition in the High Court.
D
          These appeals are accordingly considered· to be dismissed under
    these circumstances. No costs.

    T.N.A.                                                 Appeals dismissed.




                                                                                  ''