Delhi High Court
Shri Hari Kishan vs State Bank Of India & Anr. on 11 January, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 3925/2013
% 11th January, 2017
SHRI HARI KISHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.Hari Shankar, Sr. Adv.
with Ms. Ashly Cherian, Adv.
versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajiv Kapur and Ms.
Khushboo Kapur, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner seeks the relief of being appointed to the post of Assistant
Manager (Law) with the respondent no.1/Bank, and 42 of such posts were
advertised by the respondent no.1 in terms of its Advertisement No. CR
PD/SCO/2012-13/02 dated 28.09.2012.
2. Though in the writ petition various issues were raised, today, the
limited issue which arises in view of the completion of pleadings by the
parties, and so argued before this Court on behalf of the petitioner, is that the
total number of vacancies of the respondent no.1 for the posts of Assistant
Manager (Law) were 42 in number and which on account of merger of certain
posts of Managers with the posts of Assistant Managers (Law) came to be
increased to 55 as per the circumstances of less appointments in the self-same
recruitment process being made to the post of Manager (Law) of the
respondent no.1, and that since the total appointments of the posts of Assistant
Manager (Law) are 55, and of this only 25 appointments are in the General
Category, hence the position which emerges is that reservation exceeds 50% of
the posts of Assistant Manager (Law), and consequently the recruitment
process is required to be set aside to the extent of excess appointments above
50% for the reserved category.
3. Before proceeding further, it is required to be noted that though
the petitioner qualified in the written examination and was called for the
interview, the petitioner was however not successful when the final select list
was taken out, inasmuch as, the petitioner only had secured 59 marks being 44
marks in Professional Knowledge and 15 marks in Interview and the last
candidate selected for the post of Assistant Manager (Law) was having 60
marks. Therefore the only issue which survives is as to whether the reserved
category appointments done by the respondent no.1 exceeds the limit of 50%
for the reserved categories.
4. As per the advertisement, it was provided that the number of
vacancies can vary as per the actual requirements of the bank. It cannot be
disputed in law that such variation of posts to a reasonable extent from those as
advertised is valid because an employer is not confined strictly for filling in
only the posts as advertised to be filled in, and an employer has a right as per
the exigent circumstances to reasonably vary the posts which are advertised as
compared to the posts which are filled in, provided of course that there is no
huge/wide variance and when it will then in fact amount to fraud/illegality in
the recruitment process.
5. It is seen that as per the subject advertisement for the post of
Assistant Manager (Law), 42 vacancies were advertised, of which 6 were in the
SC Category, 3 were in the ST Category, 11 were in the OBC Category and 22
were in the General Category and thus making the total of 42 posts. For the
post of Manager (Law) again the self-same number of vacancies were
advertised in the same proportion as of the posts of Assistant Manager (Law).
As per the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent no.1, it transpires that
respondent no.1 could not in the very recruitment process fill in all the posts of
Manager (Law) totaling to 42 in number, and hence it was decided to merge
the vacant posts of Manager (Law) towards the posts of Assistant Manager
(Law). Resultantly the position which ensued is stated in the counter-affidavit
of respondent no.1 as regards the posts and which is as under:-
Post/particulars in respect of SC ST OBC GEN Total
vacancies of SBI
Manager (Law) Vacancies 6 3 11 22 42
Vacancies
(Law) after adding unfilled
vacancies detailed in SL.No.3
6. A reading of the aforesaid chart shows that out of the vacancies of
Manager (Law) the vacancies which were filled in were only 29 and hence there
were 13 unfilled vacancies of the posts of Manager (Law). These 13 vacancies
were by decision of the respondent no.1 merged with the 42 posts of Assistant
Manager (Law), and therefore, the total posts of Assistant Manager (Law) became
55 in number. Out of the 55 posts, only 50 were filled in, and therefore, 50% of
the 50 posts come to 25 in number. The aforesaid chart shows that out of 50
posts, 25 are in the General Category and 25 are in the Reserved Category and
hence there is no crossing of the barrier of 50% for reserved vacancies.
Accordingly, I cannot agree with the arguments urged on behalf of the petitioner
that the limit of 50% of vacancies has been crossed in this particular case.
7. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition and the
same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
JANUARY 11, 2017/ib VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
