Supreme Court of India

LUDHIANA CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.versusAMRIK SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: 2003 INSC 407
Decided: 19 August 2003
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: S RAJENDRA BABU

Holding

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, held that the selection list and appointments were void, and directed fresh recruitment in accordance with the Registrar’s directives, emphasizing that only the Board of Directors can appoint and that candidates have no vested right to appointment.

Summary

The Ludhiana Central Co‑operative Bank invited applications for junior clerk/typist posts and, after conducting tests, prepared a merit list. The Registrar of Co‑operative Societies ordered a freeze on all appointments due to state elections, and the new government later banned all recruitments. Despite these directives, the Managing Director unilaterally issued a select list and appointment letters, which the High Court upheld by directing publication of the results. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by ignoring the Registrar’s and government’s ban, that the Board of Directors alone has the power to appoint, and that a candidate’s inclusion in a select panel does not create a vested right to appointment. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s order, declared the appointments void, and directed the bank to re‑advertise, conduct a combined test/interview, and make fresh selections, treating the earlier appointees as ad‑hoc with no permanence.

Issues considered

The High Court’s direction to publish selection results and appoint candidates was valid despite the Registrar’s freeze and government ban.
Whether the Managing Director could unilaterally issue a selection list and appointment letters without Board approval.
Whether a candidate named in a select panel acquires a vested right to appointment.
Whether appointments made under the High Court order have any legal effect.
Whether the bank must conduct fresh recruitment in compliance with the Registrar’s directions.

Legislation cited

Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961s. 50

Subjects

recruitmentappointmentco-operative bankselection processvested rightadministrative lawban orderregistrar directionsad hoc appointmentboard of directorsfairnessirregularities

Judgment

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:

Recruitment/appointment by Co-operative Bank-Post of Junior Clerk
c and Typist-Conduct oftest and interview-Preparation ofmerit 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
Director of the Bank issuing a select list and wait list of candidates
D
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.

Appellant-bank invited applications for the post of Junior Clerk/Junior
F 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 but withheld and therefore,
there is no merit in the challenge made to the selections.

Allowing the appeals, the Court G
HELD: 1.1 The functioning of the then Managing Director.of the
appellant-Bank is neither appreciable nor the so called selections can be given
any credence of real/proper selections or can be said to have been made in
accordance with law. The whole process appear to have been not only
perfunctory but really a farce of selection vitiated by award of indiscriminate H
768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A marks to boost up candidates of choice and uneasonably put down others in
utter disregard and derogation of the bindiug guidelines. Indisputably, the
power to appoint is vested in the Board of Directors of the appellant-Bank
under the bylaws and the constitution of a Committee for the selection of
candidates by conducting tests and interviews cannot clothe the said committee
with powers to finalise the same without the approval of the Board and/or either
B dedare the results of selection on their own or appoint persons pursuant to
such selections without reference to the Board. (775-D-F)

1.2. High Court while allowing the writ petition, could not have ignored
the directions of the Registrar, the ban orders of the Government, and the
C final directions issued by the Registrar as to what should be done in all
pending as well as fresh matters to ensure transparency as well as to mete
out real and effective justice to all aspirants for the jobs in question, by finding
a solution ofits own without even looking into the records relating to the
selections to satisfy itself as to the legality, propriety, regularity and
reasonableness of the so called selections and the process adopted by the
D Committee before directing action to be taken in implementation thereof.
(775-G, H; 776-AJ

1.3. It is well settled by now that a person whose name is said to find
place in a select panel has no vested right to get appointed to the post in spite
of vacancies existing. The appointing authority cannot afford to ignore
E indivi.dual claims at its whim or fancy, in operating such panel or making
appointments on the basis of the panel, by merely 'pick and choose' of
candidates. The High Court could not have directed the publication ofresults
or to accord appointments as per such results, in derogation of the circular
orders of the Registrar of Co-operative societies fo~ issuance of fresh
F advertisement for the post, conduct test/interview, a combined one for old and
new candidates which decision seem to have been taken as a matter of policy
and for uniform application to all cases pending finalisation as well as for
any new proposals for recruitment of staff relating to all Co-operative Banks
in the State. The High Court ought to have, at any rate, gone into all these
relevant and vital aspects at least when serious irregularities have been
G brought to notice by filing a review petition, by calling for production of the
relevant records, thus the orders of High Court is set aside. (776-B-EJ

1.4. The results published and appointment orders issued pursuant
thereto shall have no legal effect or consequence and cannot confer any rights
thereunder, to any one concerned. The posts to which such appointments were
H
LUDHIANA CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. v. AMRIKSINGH [RAJENDRA BABU,J.] 769

made is declared to be vacant and available for being filled up. Appellant-Bank A
shall issue advertisement; conduct a combined test and interview for all
candidates; prepare a select list for appointment; and relax the requirement
of age, for those who already applied pursuant to the earlier advertisement.
Those appointed pursuant to the orders of the High Coµrt will be considered
to be ad hoc appointees to hold position with no right for ·any priority or B
preference or for any claim of permanence, yielding place to newly selected/
appointed persons. [776-F-H; 777-A-CJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3729-3730 of
1999.

From the Judgment and Order dated 22.10.97 of the Punjab and Haryana C
High Court in C.W. No. 6056of1997.

M.C. Bhandare, Ashok Aggarwal, Vineet Sinha and R.P. Saxena for the
Appellant.

V.R. Reedy, Manoj Swarup, Manish Khandelwal, Hiren Dasan and D
Deabasis Misra for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

RAJENDRA BABU, J. The appellant-Bank invited applications for the
posts of Junior Clerks/Junior Clerk-cum-Typist by means of an advertisement E
in "Indian Express" newspaper dated 24.5.96, in the then pay scales of Rs.
1450-2950, plus usual allowances. Similar advertisements were issued in two
other daily newspapers also on 25.5.96. The last date was fixed for receipt of
applications as 8.6.96. All these were done pursuant to the decision taken by
the Board of Directors of the appellant-Bank. As many as 1565 applications p
were said to have been received and the private respondents who were writ
petitioners before the High Court seem to be few among those applicants. The
Board of Directors appears to have constituted a Committee to conduct the
selections, consisting of (a) President of the appellant-Bank; (b) Managing
Director of the appellant-Bank; (c) A Director of the appellant-Bank (Shri
Harmohinder Singh); (d) nominee of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies G
Punjab and (e) General Manager of the Punjab State Co-operative Bank Ltd.
(Shri Sohan Singh-nominated member from the State Government). During the
period from 19.12.96 to 28.12.96 typing tests and interviews were said to have
been conducted by the said Selection Committee, and a merit list was also
stated to have been prepared, though signed by only three out of five .H
770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A members of the Committee and that the two who did not sign it were said to
be (d) and ( e) mentioned above.

While so, in the teeth of the announcement made on 30.12.96. for
conduct of General Elections in the State for the Legislative Assembly, on
9. 1.97 the Registrar 'of Co-operative Societies seem to have written to the
B appellant-Bank to freeze all appointments, followed by another letter dated
21. l. 97 to all the Co-operative Banks in the State that recruitment process
could be resumed only with the specific prior pennission of the Registrar.
After the general elections it is stated that on 9.2.97 a new Government took
over the reigns of administration in the State and in the place of erstwhile
C Congress Party Akail Dal appears to have become the ruling party. On 10.2.97
the Chief Secretary to the Government is stated to have communicated to the
Registrar of Co-operative Societies and all other State Corporations that the
Government had banned all recruitments/appointments/transfers, at all levels,
until the election process is completed by the new Government taking over
the charge. While so, the Manager of the appellant Bank by a letter written
D on 21.2.97 to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies sought for permission to
declare the results arid make appointments. The Registrar, by his communication
dated 3.4.97, wrote to all the Joint Registrars and Deputy Registrars of Co-
operative Societies and Managers of all Co-operative Banks, in continuation
of his earlier letter dated 21.1.97 that in some Co-operative Banks, the vacancies
E were not notified to the Employment Exchange and sufficient time was also
found not given in calling for interviews resulting in number of deserving
candidates being denied an opportunity to participate in the election process
and also could not appear for interview and consequently directed all Co-
operative Banks to (a) notify to the concerned Employment Exchange in
accordance with the instructions of the Government the vacancy position
F before making any recrutitment; (b) give public notice/advertisement in
newspaper for vacant posts for infonnation of general public; (c) that even
those banks which have already given advertisements in newspapers also
give again advertisement in newspapers setting out the latest position· of
vacant, posts, indicating at the sanie time that those who had already submitted
their applications pursuant to the earlier advertisement need not apply again
G and (d) in order to maintain parity in the standard of test/interview .for
recruitment, a combine. test/interview of old and fresh· candidates be held
again.

While matters stood thus, the private respondents herein (writ petitioners
H before the High Court) filed on 30.4.97 CWP No. 6056 of97 a writ petition for
LUDHIANA CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. v. AMRIK SINGH [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 771
directing the appellant-Bank to declare the results of the selections made for A
the recruitment of junior clerks/junior clerks-cum-typists and further direct
appointments to be made in terms of such results. The appellant-Bank filed
their counter affidavit contending that there was no obligation on the part of
the Appointing Authority to give appointments on the basis of the selection
process undertaken, even if there had been any recommendations made out
of such selection process, and therefore, the relief as prayed for could not B
be granted. Objection regarding the maintainability of.the writ petition itself
against the Bank which is a Co-operative Societies only also seems to have
been raised. The attention of the High Court was also drawn to the intervening
of General Elections, the directions of the Registrar, the ban orders of the
Government and the subsequent directions of the Registrar, to which reference C
has been made supra. It was urged that, in the light of all such above stated
developments, the process has to be redone by resorting to fresh
advertisements of posts, conduct of interviews and tests and results could
not be declared as prayed for and that those who applied earlier can compete
along with the new candidates, if any, afresh. The plea that the appellant-Bank
was bound by the directions noticed above and cannot disobey them also D
appears to have been urged.

After final hearing of the writ petition, by an order dated 22.10.97, tht
Division Bench of the High Court, while allowing the writ petition, qirected
the publication of the results of selection and fill up the posts on the basis E
of merit performance, as indicated from the results of selections, within one
month from the date of the order. The Managing Director of the appellant-
Bank as it is contended now, without choosing the submit the records rdating
the selection before the Board of Directors which appointed the Selection
Committee and which alone is claimed to be the competent authority for the
purpose, unauthorizedly and arbitrarily, in gross abuse of his position and in F
an illegal manner issued on 21.11.97 a list of 55 candidates as having been
selected for the said posts. A wait list of 14 candidates was also said to have
been issued, followed by issuance of appointment letters also on that date
itself. On 24.11.97, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies seems to have
passed an order in exercise of powers under Section 50 of the Punjab Co- G
operative Societies Act, 1961, that since number of complaints have been
received as to the manner and method of the so called selection and recruitment
process relating the appellant-Bank, it became imperative to hold an enquiry
into the working of the Board of Directors and the Selection Committee in
respect of such selections and appointed the then Deputy Secretary Co-
operative Department (Shri A.S. Bains) an Enquiry Officer for the purpose. H
772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A The said Enquiry Officer by his communication dated 24.11.97 called upon the
Managing Director to place the entire records of selected before him on
1.12.97 but the said direction \\'.as not complied with. The Managing Director
did not participate in the proposed enquiry. In the meantime, on 24.l l.97 the
Chief Executive Officer of the Bank called for a meeting of the Board of
B Directors on 28.11.97, which the Managing Director is stated to have cancelled
on 27.11.97. As per claim made, though it was said to be only a manipulation
by him of having done so, when not really done. But the emergent meeting
called for is said to have been held, as proposed on 28.11.97. The resolution
said to have been passed on the date requires to be set out, for appreciating
the nature of things which were said to have marred/vitiated the so called
C selection process and the consequent declaration of results and appointments
made pursuant thereto.

"The Board considered the agenda item which was produced by the
Manager in detail. In the agenda note Manager has said that C. W.P.No
6056 of 1997 was decided by the High Court on 22. l 0. 97 copy of which
D was issued by the Hon'ble High Court on 21.11.97. which was received
in the Bank on 24.11.97. It was also told by him that on 21.11.97 Shri
Baljit Singh Gill Managing Director sent a list of 55 selected candidates
and the candidates on the waiting list to the Bank which was signed
only by Shri Baljit Singh Gill Managing Director and appointment
letters were also issued by him at his own level. For the purpose of
E selection of Clerks, the Board of Director vide its supplementary
resolution No.1 dated 4.9.97 had constituted the following selection
committee:-
l. Shri Tejinder Singh, President
2. Shri Baljit Singh, Managing Director
F
3. Shri Harmohinder Singh, Director
4. Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ludhiana
5. Nominee of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh
6. Representative of Punjab State Cooperative bank Ltd. Chandigarh.
G
Vide this resolution the Board of Directors did not authorize any
member of the selection committee to issue appointment letters. The
above selection committee was required to finalise the selection list
and send the same to the Board of Directors for approval but instead
of doing so only one member of the selection committee Sh. Baljit
H Singh Gill, Managing Director, prepared the selection list and sent it
LUDHIANA CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. v. AMRIK SINGH [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 773
to the Manager. The same member also unauthorisedly issued A
appointment letters at his own level. Member of the Selection Committee
Shri Sohan Singh, G.M. Apex Bank Chandigarh and S. Nazar Singh
Deputy Registrar now M.D., C.C.B. Patiala have reported in writing
that the selection list has been issued without their knowledge/
signatures. The Manager did not produce the record/documents B
relating to type test and interview marks. No record of any type was
produced to prove that the selection of candidates is as per merit.
Manager also infonned the Board of Directors that Managing Director
Sahib did not give him any record relating to the selections. Manager
also informed that the selection list has been sent by Managing
Director Sahib under his sole signatures. It is for this reason that he C
could not infonn the Board as to how many marks were given to each
candidate in the interview and the list and what is the basis of the
selection list. After consideration all this circumstances, it seems clear
to the Board of Directors that selection list has been prepared after
tempering with the record and it is for this reason that the original D
records is not being produced before the Board. The selection list
issued by M.D. Sahib is issued unauthorisedly and in a hurried
manner and as such he has created obstacles in the implementation
of the order of the High Court in letter and spirit. It is also clear that
the selection list has been prepared by the Managing Director in an
unjust and unfair manner and by ignoring the true facts and the E
merits/qualifications of the candidates. Therefore, the Board of
Directors, unanimously by expressing disagreement with the entire
action of the Managing Director, rejects the selection list issi:ed by
him. The Board of Directors issued directions to the Manager that he
should obtain the entire record relating to the selection and in this
regard, whatever legal action is to be taken, the Manager Head Office F
C.C.B. Ludhiana is authorized to take. He may settle the advocate's
fee and make payment to him.

It is also resolved unanimously that Manager is authorized to file/
defend in any court regarding this selection and for procuring the
record. Manager of the Bank is also directed that after obtaining the G
record, he should produce it within one week before the Board of
Directors so that the directions of the Hon'ble High Court be complied
with in letter and spirit.

Sd/- H
President.
774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Certified that the abov~ is true copy of the Proceeding Book and the
same is available in the Bank Record.
Sd/-
ChiefExecutive Officer,
C.C.B. Ludhiana."
B Thereafter an application setting out extensively the serious irregularities,
infirmities and gross violations of law alleged to have been committed in the
matter of selection, the improper manner of determination of the successful
candidates and infirmities in the appointments made pursuant thereto, was.
filed in the High Court with a prayer seeking for review of the earlier order
C dated 22. l 0.97 allowing the writ petition. The said application in RACW No.
180 of 1998 was summarily rejected by making certain cryptic observations
really not touching upon the seriousness of the matter brought before the
court. Hence these appeals.

The learned senior counsel for the appellant-Bank contended that the
D serious irregularities committed in the matter of the selection resulted not only
in serious miscarriage of justice to the interests of the appellant but also to
the large number of 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
E accept the same and the Board had every right, in obedience to the directions
of the Govem.ment and Registrar and even for other valid reasons as found
in this case, ultimately not to accord sanction and refuse to approve the so
called selections and gone for fresh advertisement by inviting applications
and make selections in the manner directed by the Registrar taking into
p account those who applied earlier by conducting fresh selections of all those
who applied earlier and also subsequently responding to fresh advertisements;
that, the High Court committed a serious error of law in allowing the writ
petition with no proper or serious contest of the matter 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
G before issuing a writ, as prayed for; that, at least when the nature of
irregularities and illegailities have been pointed out which seriously undermined
the so called selection process as a whole, the High Court ought to have gone
into them objectively and could not afford to- lightly ignore or brush them
aside by rejecting them summarily; that, consequently, the order of the High
H Court should be set aside and fresh selections ordered, to do real and
LUDHIANA CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. v. AMRIK SINGH [R'AJENDRA BABU, J.] 77 5
substantial justice in the matter to all these concerned. A
Per contra, on behalf of the writ petitioners before the High Court,
respondents I to 20 herein, political bias has been attributed to the move of
the Bank and other authorities, besides claiming that the selections have been
properly held and conducted by the Committee duly constituted and
consequently, the High Court was right in allowing the writ petition to declare B
., the results and order their appointments in pursuance thereto. The learned
senior counsel for the contesting respondents also cortended that all the
relevant records relating to the selections have been not produced but withheld
and therefore there is no merit in the challenge made to the selections claimed
to have been duly and properly made by the committee constituted for the C
purpose, and consequently the appeals are liable to be dismissed, as of no
merit.

We have carefully considered the submissions on behalf of the parties
on either side, in the light of the materials placed on record. The conclusion
that the functioning of the then Managing Director of the appellant-Bank is D
neither appreciable nor th~ so called selections can be given any credence
of real/proper selections or can be said to have been made in accordance with
law, becomes irresistible. The whole. process appear to have been not only
perfunctory but really a farce of selection vitiated by award of indiscriminate
marks to boost up candidates of choice and unreasonably put down others
in utter disregard and derogation of the binding guidelines. Indisputably, the E
power to appoint is vested in the Board of Directors of the appellant-Bank
under the bylaws and the constitution of a Committee for the selection of
candidates by conducting tests and interviews cannot clothe the said committee
with also powers to finalise the same without the approval of the Board and/
or either declare the results of selection on their own or appoint persons p
pursuant to such selections without reference to the Board. There is a serious
claim by the appellant-Bank, that the assessment of candidates appear to be
in gross violation of the binding circular orders of the Registrar of Co-
operative Societies dated 31.12.91. The High Court while passing the order on
22.10.97 allowing the writ petition, could not have ignored the directions of
the Registrar on 9. l. 97 and 31. l. 97, the ban orders of the Government issued G
• on 10.2.97 and the final directions issued on 3.4.97 by the Registrar as to what
should be done in all pending as well as fresh matters to ensure transparency
as well as to mete out real and effective justice to all aspirants for the jobs
in question, by finding a solution of its own without even looking into the
records relating to the selection to satisfy itself as to the legality, propriety H
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A regularity and reasonableness of the so called selections and the process
adopted by the Committee before directing action to be taken in implementation
thereof. Even otherwise it is well settled by now that a person whose name
is said to find place in a select panel has no vested right to get appointed
to the post in spite of vacancies existing. The appointing authority cannot
afford to ignore individual claims at its whim or fancy, in operating such panel
B or making appointments ·on the basis of the panel, by merely 'pick and
choose' of candidates. The High Court could not have directed the publication <'

of results or to accord appointments as per such results, all the more in this
case, in the teeth of and in derogation of the circular orders of the Registrar
of Co-operative Societies dated 3.4.97 which decision seem to have been
C taken as a matter of policy and for uniform application to all cases pending
finalisation as well as for any new proposals for recruitment of staff relating
to all Co-operative Banks in the State. The High Court, ought to have, at any
rate, gone into all these relevant and vital aspects at least when _serious
irregularities have been brought to notice by filing a review petition, by
calling for production of the relevant records. The cavalier fashion in which
D it seems to have been rejected cannot meet with our approval, at any rate on
the peculiar facts and circumstances, highlighted in this case.
\
For the reasons stated above, we set aside the orders of the High Court I-
dated 22.10.97 allowing CWP No. 6056 of 1997 as well as the one made on
E 30.10.98 on the review petition and further order that the said writ petition to
be dismissed. To meet the peculiar situation created by the decision of the
High Court and the need to do real and effective justice to all parties concerned
the following directions are issued.

"I. Since we have set aside the order of the High Court dated 22.10.97
F and 30. l 0.98 and dismissed CWP No. 6056 of 1967 on its file, the
results published and appointment orders issued pursuant thereto
shall have no legal effect or consequence and cannot confer any
rights thereunder, to anyone concerned. The posts to which such
appointments were made is declared to be vacant and available for

G
being filled up under this order.

2. Further action shall be taken by the appellant-Bank:

(a) issue fresh public notice/advertisement in newspapers disclosing
..
the vacancy position and invite applications;

(b) conduct a common/combined test and interview for all candidates
H
LUDHIANA CENlRALCO-OPERATIVE BANKLTD. v. AMRIKSINGH [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 777

who already applied without insisting upon any fresh application from A
them and as if they also applied along with those. who respond now
pursuant to the fresh advertisements by making applications, and
prepare a select list for appointment following the guidelines or orders
in force and binding in respect of such selections;

(c) relax the requirement of age, if need be, to those who already B
applied pursuant to the earlier advertisement-whether found selected
in the earlier selection or not; and

(d) if anyone appointed pursuant to the orders of the High Court
dated 22.10.97 which orders have been now set aside is holding
office-they will be considered to be ad hoc appointees to hold C
position with no right for any priority or preference or for any claim
of permanence, subject to the results of the fresh selections to be
made and till such time as the new selections and appointments are
made, yielding place to such newly selected/appointed persons."

The appeals, therefore, shall stand allowed subject to the above D
- directions. No costs.

NJ. Appeals allowed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "recruitment"Sign in to search