MADANPURI Vs. DUNGARPUR BANSWARA KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four writ petitions raise almost similar questions of facts and law and, therefore, they were heard together and are dealt with simultaneously and are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are: that the respondent Dungarpur Banswara Kshetriya Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent Bank') published an Advertisement in Rajasthan Patrika dated 16 -11 -1985 inviting applications for 30 posts of officers and other cadres. It was made clear in the advertisement that the panel will be effective upto March 1987 and the respondent Bank will convey appointment orders from this panel keeping in view its own requirements. It can add or reduce the vacancies. However, in pursuance of this advertisement, number of persons applied. A written test was taken and thereafter, interviews was held and a panel was prepared on 28 -2 -1987. As the selection process took long time, the life of the panel was extended from March 1987 to 29 -2 -1988. A panel of 33 persons was prepared because 10% of the number of vacancies were to be included in the panel on reserve list. As the estimated vacancies were 30, a panel for 33 persons was prepared. It is alleged that the petitioners Madanpuri, Dinesh Kumar, Mangalram Verma and Ummed Ujjawal stood in the merit list at serial Nos. 29, 25, 32 and 31 respectively. Copy of the panel prepared by the respondent Bank containing 33 names has been filed in the writ petition filed by petitioner Madanpuri marked as Annexure -R -1. This panel has been prepared on the basis of 100 point Roster sarving certain vacancies for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The circular providing 100 point roster applicable to such selection has been filed in the writ petition filed by petitioner Madanpuri marked as Annexure -R -2 and the actual points to be resevered in a 100 point roster for SC/ST in Rajasthan are contained at item No. 16 of the Annexure appended to this Circular Annexure -R -2. It is alleged that out of 33 persons, whose names are mentioned in Panel Annexure -R.1, 24 persons have been offered appointments and thereafter, no offer has been made to any other selected person from this panel. By resclution dated 19 -2 -1988 (Annexure -R -3, filed in the writ petition of petitioner Madanpuri) of the Board of Directors of the respondent Bank, the life of the panel was further extended for a period of six months from 1 -3 -1988. Thereafter, the life of the panel was not extended and instead, the Advertisement (Annexura -13 filed in the writ petition of petitioner Madanpuri) was issued for filling 18 posts of Officers in the respondent Bank. The advertisement Annexure -13 was issued for the expected and anticipated vacancies which may occur during the year 1989. When the petitioner were not given appointments, they made representations before the expiry of the Panel Annexure -Rule 1 and even thereafter and when they came to know that fresh advertisement Annexure -13 has been issued, they have filed these writ petitions.

(3.) IT was submitted that the life of the panel could have been extended by the Board of Directors of the respondent Bank but the Chairman of the respondent Bank felt that for extending the life of the panel, sanction of the Govt. of India essential and, therefore, no appointments were accorded to the remaining persons from the Panel Annexure -Rule 1. It was further submitted that earlier, the Board of Directors of the respondent Bank extended the term of the panel for six months without obtaining sanction from the Govt. of India and that extention was acted upon and, therefore, the Board of Directors of the respondent Bank was fully competent to extend the life of the panel for another six months or till the new panel was prepared or became operative. It was also submitted that a hostile discrimination has been meted out to the petitioners as against those who were given appointment in the extended term of the panel for six months.