1995 JTR(SC) 1123
1996 AIR(SC) 976 ; 1996 AIR(SCW) 420 ; 1996 2 BC 250 ; 1995 4 CurCC(SC) 252 ; 1996 72 FLR 349 ; 1996 ISJ(Banking) 185 ; 1995 8 JT 276 ; 1996 LIC 912 ; 1996 1 LLJ 1103 ; 1996 1 LLN 795 ; 1995 6 Scale 364 ; 1996 1 SCC 283 ; 1996 SCC(L&S) 298 ; 1995 Supp5 SCR 35 ; 1996 1 SCT 660 ; 1996 1 SLR 307 ; 1996 1 UPLBEC 710 ; 1996 KHC 614 ; 1996 1 KLT(Online) 962
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. RAMASWAMY AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.
Ashok Kumar and others, Appellants
Versus
Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal Nos. 484-85 of 1989,
D/- 9-11-1995.
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.14, Art.16(1), Art.136
(A) The recruitment practices of nationalised banks in the Eastern Region were found to violate Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution, as the selection process involved appointing candidates in excess of notified vacancies without a fresh, transparent advertisement, thereby undermining the constitutional right to equality and fair consideration for public employment under Article 136. The High Court's dismissal of the writ petitions was reviewed in light of this constitutional infraction, emphasizing that the authority of the Recruitment Boards must operate within the framework of notified vacancies and merit-based selection.
(B) Fundamental right to equality; recruitment must be confined to notified vacancies; advertisement and selection must adhere to constitutional procedure; excess appointments are unconstitutional; relief denied if candidate's rank far exceeds vacancies; appellate relief limited where no petition was filed in High Court.
Facts of the case:
Requisitions were issued for recruitment to State Bank of India and other nationalised Banks, creating select lists with far more candidates than the notified vacancies. A high-power committee later directed the adjustment of wait-listed candidates to fill subsequent vacancies, resulting in selections made outside the notified process. Certain petitioners whose applications were not selected challenged the procedure.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the recruitment boards adopted wholly unconstitutional procedures by creating excess selections, denying the right to equality under Article 14 and Article 16(1). While the appointments already made would not be disturbed, the Boards were directed to adhere strictly to notified vacancies in the future. Relief was denied to the appellant ranked far beyond the number of vacancies, and other appellants who did not approach the High Court were not entitled to relief.
Issues:
Whether recruitment in excess of notified vacancies violates constitutional rights; whether wait-listed candidates can be adjusted to unnotified vacancies; whether appellate relief is maintainable when no High Court petition was filed; whether the Court can interfere in completed appointments where no party was impleaded.
Ratio Decidendi:
Recruitment must be limited to notified vacancies through a transparent advertisement and selection process as mandated by Article 14 and Article 16(1); appointments beyond notified numbers are unconstitutional, but completed appointments will not be disturbed in the absence of an impleaded party; relief is denied to candidates whose rank far exceeds the available vacancies.
Result:
Appeals dismissed with no costs; existing appointments stand, but Boards must follow constitutional procedure for future recruitment strictly based on notified vacancies.
(A) The recruitment practices of nationalised banks in the Eastern Region were found to violate Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution, as the selection process involved appointing candidates in excess of notified vacancies without a fresh, transparent advertisement, thereby undermining the constitutional right to equality and fair consideration for public employment under Article 136. The High Court's dismissal of the writ petitions was reviewed in light of this constitutional infraction, emphasizing that the authority of the Recruitment Boards must operate within the framework of notified vacancies and merit-based selection.
(B) Fundamental right to equality; recruitment must be confined to notified vacancies; advertisement and selection must adhere to constitutional procedure; excess appointments are unconstitutional; relief denied if candidate's rank far exceeds vacancies; appellate relief limited where no petition was filed in High Court.
Facts of the case:
Requisitions were issued for recruitment to State Bank of India and other nationalised Banks, creating select lists with far more candidates than the notified vacancies. A high-power committee later directed the adjustment of wait-listed candidates to fill subsequent vacancies, resulting in selections made outside the notified process. Certain petitioners whose applications were not selected challenged the procedure.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the recruitment boards adopted wholly unconstitutional procedures by creating excess selections, denying the right to equality under Article 14 and Article 16(1). While the appointments already made would not be disturbed, the Boards were directed to adhere strictly to notified vacancies in the future. Relief was denied to the appellant ranked far beyond the number of vacancies, and other appellants who did not approach the High Court were not entitled to relief.
Issues:
Whether recruitment in excess of notified vacancies violates constitutional rights; whether wait-listed candidates can be adjusted to unnotified vacancies; whether appellate relief is maintainable when no High Court petition was filed; whether the Court can interfere in completed appointments where no party was impleaded.
Ratio Decidendi:
Recruitment must be limited to notified vacancies through a transparent advertisement and selection process as mandated by Article 14 and Article 16(1); appointments beyond notified numbers are unconstitutional, but completed appointments will not be disturbed in the absence of an impleaded party; relief is denied to candidates whose rank far exceeds the available vacancies.
Result:
Appeals dismissed with no costs; existing appointments stand, but Boards must follow constitutional procedure for future recruitment strictly based on notified vacancies.
A.K.Sil, ATUL K.BANDHU, C.N.SRI KUMAR, G.JOSHI, GAGRAT JANEDRA LAL, GHANSHYAM VASHISHT, MIRA MATHUR, O.C.MATHUR, P.N.Gupta, RAM SVARUP, S.K.Sinha, SATISH AGGARWAL, SHANTI SVARUP SHARMA, V.SHEKHAR
JUDGMENT :- It is rather unfortunate that the Recruitment Boards have adopted wholly unconstitutional procedure in selecting candidates for candidates for the Sate 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.
2. It would be clear that in 1983, while making Recruitment Board for the SBI prepared a select list in excess of the requirement notified by the respective Banks i.e., 3100 candidates were put in the select list to be appointed by the State Bank of India. Equally, since vacancies had arisen to the extent of 6700, combined examination Board for the national Banks made a mess in the recruitment of the candidates in excess of the notified vacancies.
3. It would also appear that with a view to clear the mess created by Recruitment Boards, a high power Committee was constituted by the Ministry of Finance, Banking Division. The high- power Committee had gone into the question and recommended that instead of calling fresh applications for the vacancies that had arisen between the date of the notification 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 process, Mohammed Shahzad, appellant No. 3 who was standing at No. 2156 of the 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 petitioner before the High Court. have filed these appeals.
4. 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 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 proper forum for selection of the candidates.
5. Article 14 read with Article 16 (1) of the Constitution 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 candidates to be considered for their selection in accordance with their merit. The recruitment of the candidates in excess of the notified vacancies is a denial and deprivation of the constitutional right under Article 14 read with 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 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 recruitment 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.
6. 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 of the appellant No. 3 since admittedly his ranking in the select list was 2156 far in excess of the notified vacancies.
7. In these circumstances, though reluctantly and with constraint. we are unable to grant any relief to the unfortunate appellant No. 3. Others are not entitled as they did not file any writ petition in the High Court.
8. These appeals are accordingly considered to be dismissed under these circumstances. No costs.
Appeal dismissed.