Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nirmesh vs Punjab National Bank & Ors on 16 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA No. 1366 of 2017
Date of Decision: 16.03.2022
216
Nirmesh ...........Appellant(s)
vs.
Punjab National Bank and another ..........Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Present:- Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate,
for Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Saurav Verma, Advocate,
and Mr. Akash Soni, Advocate, for the respondents
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral)
Challenge in the present appeal filed by the unsuccessful petitioner
is to the order of the learned Single Judge passed in CWP No. 9559 of 2017,
Nirmesh vs. Punjab National Bank and another, decided on 18.05.2017. The
learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the settled principle that
the petitioner cannot claim appointment from the reserve list as a matter of right
enforceable by mandamus. Thus, it was held that the decision of the bank in
refusing to touch the reserve list or in advertising the fresh process by sending
requisition to the IBPS for subsequent financial years to fill up the pool of
vacancies of clerks could not be interfered with.
Counsel for the appellant, as such, has submitted that once there
was intimation that 124 posts of clerks for the OBC category were being
notified and filled up, the bank was under an obligation to fill up the said posts.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the position of law is that
the applicant has got no vested right as such and has only a right of
consideration. It is upto the employer as such to see what are the number of
vacancies which had to be filled up.
1 of 3
In the present case, it is to be noticed that as per the advertisement
(Annexure P-9), it was mentioned that various banks were the participating
organizations in the advertisement process carried out by the Institute of
Banking Personnel Selection (in short 'the IBPS'). The posts were not specified
as such which had to be filled up pertaining to the respondent-bank. As per
Annexure P-4, the number of posts for the OBC category of Clerks as such were
124. It is the case of the writ petitioner that only 97 candidates were employed
and the other posts were not filled up and, therefore, claims a right of
consideration as being on the reserve list having obtained 64.38 marks in the
recruitment process.
The learned Single Judge has relied upon a document dated
14.02.2017 (Annexure P-8) given in response to the application dated
26.01.2017 filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to dismiss the writ
petition in limine whereby one candidate had been informed that there was no
requirement of Clerks in the State of Haryana for the financial years 2016-17
and, therefore, the respondent-Bank had not participated in the second round
through the reserve list. Resultantly, while placing reliance upon the judgment
of the Apex Court in Mrs. Asha Kaul and another vs. State of Jammu &
Kashmir and others, (1993) 2 SCC 573, it was held that there is no reason as
such to call upon the bank to reply upon the letter dated 14.02.2017 (Annexure
P-8).
Since the writ petition had been dismissed in limine, response was
sought in the present appeal, which has been filed. It has been specifically
mentioned in the reply that the reserve list was to automatically expire on
31.03.2017 without any notice. In the absence of any requirement for clerks in
the State of Haryana for financial year 2016-17, the bank had not participated in
2 of 3
the second round.
The law is settled on the said issue and reliance can be placed upon
the judgment of the Apex Court in Shankarsan Dash vs. UOI, (1991) 3 SCC
47, wherein, it has been held that no discrimination can be permitted at the time
of recruitment but the candidates do not have any indefeasible right to be
appointed. The notification, thus, amounted to an invitation to the qualified
candidates to apply for recruitment but they do not acquire any right to the posts
in question. In the absence of any relevant Rules, it was thus held that there is
no legal duty as such to fill up all other available vacancies. The said view has
been followed in S.S. Balu and another vs. State of Kerala and others, 2009
(2) SCT 73.
It is not the case of the petitioner that persons lower in merit as
such have been appointed due to which there has been any discrimination. The
writ petition was filed on 28.04.2017 after the reserve list had expired on
31.03.2017. In the absence of such factual matrix having been made out, this
Court is of the opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer
from any legal lacuna which would warrant interference.
Accordingly, finding no merit, the present appeal is dismissed.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
JUDGE
16.03.2022 (VIKAS SURI)
shivani JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
