PRBHU DAYAL BOONDWAL Vs. ALWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 1/2/2006 by which, three writ petitions were dismissed by a common judgment.

(2.) Shri Rajendra Soni, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that appellants/writ-petitioners were wrongfully denied appointment on the post of Field Supervisors. It is contended that respondent No.1-Bank had sent an Indent of nine posts to the Banking Service Recruitment Board, which in turn advertised certain number of vacancies by a common advertisement. The advertisement pertained to the said vacancies and also for six other banks but with a condition that candidates would apply for appointment giving an option for particular bank but option once exercised would not be allowed to be changed under any circumstances. Learned counsel submitted that it was because that respondent-Bank had sent the Indent of nine vacancies for Alwar-Bharatpur Anchlik Gramin Bank and since the appellants were residents of District Alwar, they opted for appointment in that Bank. Had they known that respondent No.l-Bank was not serious about making recruitment, they would have opted for any other bank and in that eventuality, they would have got the appointment on the post of Field Supervisor. Learned counsel submitted that many of such candidates, who had also competed along with the appellants in the same process of selection were able to secure appointments with other Banks on the post of Field Supervisor in the same selection in question which, the appellants were illegally denied. Respondents have thus practiced a hostile discrimination against the appellants and the action of the respondents is. abandoning the process of selection in between, is wholly arbitrary. In any case, if respondent-Bank did not timely withdraw the Indent, appellants cannot be held responsible for the act of the respondent-bank. It is, therefore, prayed that the special appeal be allowed, the judgment of the learned Single Judge be set-aside and the appellants be held entitled for appointment on the post of Field Supervisor.

(3.) Shri Ajay Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondents-banks has opposed the appeals and submitted that process of recruitment for the vacancies for which the Indent was sent to the Banking Service Recruitment Board was abandoned because on reconsideration by the Board of Directors of the respondent-Bank, it was felt that there was no necessity of appointing Field Supervisors as per the norms laid down by the NABARD keeping in view the number of loan accounts and requirement of works. Selection of the appellants in the same panel would by itself not bestow upon them the right to claim appointment. It is contended that Alwar- Bharatpur Anchlik Gramin Bank has since merged with another bank now known as Rajasthan Gramin Bank and, therefore, original Bank has ceased to exist with the change of staffing pattern of the new bank. Indent for appointment was sent to the Banking Service Recruitment Board as far as 12/9/1989 and now 21 years have gone by since then. The respondents cannot now be required to appoint the appellants at this distance of time. Appellants were already serving the respondent-Bank when they competed in the selection in question for appointment on the post of Field Supervisor and they were substantively appointed with the respondent-bank as L.D.C. in the course of time. Promotion on way of up-gradation has also been made and, therefore, it cannot be said that they would in any manner be prejudiced because of the abandonment of the process of selection. Learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in rejecting the writ petition.