Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rahul Jain vs Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya ... on 18 August, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 100/2022
1. Rahul Jain S/o Ashok Kumar Jain, Aged About 25 Years,
Resident Of H. No. 4, Akshardham Colony, New Housing
Board, Banswara, Rajasthan.
2. Yogendra Singh Khangaroot S/o Bhanwar Singh
Khangaroot, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Ward
No.13, Gulabpura, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
3. Mahendra Kumar Prajapat S/o Gautam Lal Prajapat, Aged
About 30 Years, Resident Of Near Bsnl Office, Fatehnagar,
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Ashish Jatolia S/o Mahendra Jatolia, Aged About 25 Years,
Resident Of H.no.494/31 Shanti Nagar, Malusar Road,
Ajmer, Rajasthan.
5. Sushil Gupta S/o Jitendra Pal, Aged About 28 Years,
Resident Of 3 A Block, Ward No.22, Near Bansal
Diagnostic Centre, Raisinghnagar, Sri Ganganagar,
Rajasthan.
6. Ankit Bhardwaj S/o Gopal Lal Sharma, Aged About 30
Years, Resident Of 110 Shyam Nagar, Choumu, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
7. Ramesh Kumar Saharan S/o Ramswaroop Saharan, Aged
About 26 Years, Resident Of Ward 16 Rangeri Road,
Sahawa, Taranagar, District- Churu, Rajasthan.
8. Mamta Yadav D/o Prem Chand Yadav, Aged About 25
Years, Resident Of Ward No.12, B Sector, Kashipuram
Colony, Dabla Road, Kotputli, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
9. Kavita Baroliya D/o Pukhraj Baroliya, Aged About 27
Years, R/o A-902, Chandravardai Nagar, Ajmer Rajasthan.
10. Vikas Kumar S/o Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 31 Years,
Resident Of Village And Post Rashidpura, Via Khori Bari,
Tehsil Dhod, District - Sikar, Rajasthan.
11. Sandeep Kumawat S/o Mahaveer Prasad Kumawat, Aged
About 28 Years, Resident Of Ward 15, Aagwari Road,
Sirohi, Neemka Thana, Sikar, Rajasthan.
12. Bharatveer Chitara S/o Dhanraj Chitara, Aged About 29
Years, Resident Of 454/18 Nala Bazar, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
13. Himmat Singh Shakhawat S/o Late Bhanwar Singh
(Downloaded on 18/08/2022 at 08:58:32 PM)
(2 of 13) [SAW-100/2022]
Shakhawat, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of H. No. 19,
Basant Vihar Colony, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
14. Anubhav Soni S/o Ganesh Prasad Soni, Aged About 27
Years, Resident Of Ward-15, Subhash Colony, Nainwa,
Bundi, Rajasthan.
15. Nitish Mishra S/o Gajanand Mishra, Aged About 27 Years,
Resident Of H. No. 172-A, Bharat Nagar, Old Abadi, Sri
Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
16. Vishal Jain S/o Dinesh K Jain, Aged About 25 Years,
Resident Of H. No. 34, Matra Kripa, Gandhi Nagar, Beawar
Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
17. Virendra Pal Singh Bhati S/o Nand Bhanwar Singh, Aged
About 24 Years, R/o Village Charpotiya, Post Potla Kalan
Tehsil Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Head Office
Presently Situated At Plot No.2343, 2Nd Floor, Aana Sagar
Circular Road, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer Through Its
Chairman.
2. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Head Office Presently
Situated At Tulsi Tower, 9Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur,
342003 Through Its Chairman
3. Institute Of Banking Personnel Selection, Ibps House, 90
Feet, D.p. Road, Near Thakur Polytechnic, Off. Western
Express Highway, P.b. No.8587 Kandivali (E), Mumbai
Through Its Chairman.
4. Pooja Varshney D/o Rakesh Varshney, Aged About 31
Years, Resident Of H. No. 1206, Mahaveer Nagar 2Nd
Kota, Rajasthan.
5. Prakash Meena S/o Rameshwar Prasad Meena, Aged
About 26 Years, Resident Of H. No. 120, Prem Nagar,
Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.P. Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vipul Dharniya
Mr. Anil Bhandari
(Downloaded on 18/08/2022 at 08:58:32 PM)
(3 of 13) [SAW-100/2022]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
JUDGMENT
PRONOUNCED ON ::: 18/08/2022
RESERVED ON ::: 21/07/2022
Reportable
BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE KULDEEP MATHUR, J.)
The instant intra court appeal is directed against the order
dated 17.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Bench, whereby
the writ petition filed by the petitioners (appellants herein)
seeking a direction upon respondents to fill up 126 vacancies
pertaining to Officer Scale-II (GBO) by allotting candidates as per
merit and preference to Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank
(hereinafter referred to as 'BRKGB') was dismissed.
Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 3 i.e. IBPS
vide notification dated 01.07.2020 initiated Common Recruitment
Process for recruitment of Officers Scale-I, II and III and Office
Assistant (Multipurpose) for 43 Regional Rural Banks (RRBs)-IX
(hereinafter referred to as 'CRP-RRBs-IX'). In the CRP-RRBs-IX,
vacancies pertaining to Scale-II- General Banking Officers
(hereinafter referred to as 'Officer Scale-II (GBO)') of BRKGB i.e.
respondent No.1 were shown to be vacant. The appellants applied
to the post of Officer Scale-II (GBO) under their respective
categories. In the applications forms, appellants were required to
give options indicating preference for RRBs in the order of 'most
preferred' to 'least preferred'. The appellants indicated 'BRKGB' as
their first preference. The appellants appeared for the scheduled
examination on 18.10.2020 and were declared eligible for
interview. Thereupon, appellants appeared for interview on the
specified dates in December, 2020. A notice was issued by IBPS
(4 of 13) [SAW-100/2022]
dated 03.02.2021, provisionally allotting selected candidates to
the post of Officer Scale-II (GBO) to RRBs on the basis of
requisitioned post-wise and category-wise vacancies. In the notice
dated 03.02.2021, the vacancies belonging to Officer Scale-II
(GBO) in BRKBG were shown as 'nil' thereby depriving the
appellants of appointment in BRKGB. On enquiry, the appellants
came to know that BRKGB under the directions of sponsor bank
i.e. Bank of Baroda had informed IBPS to withdraw all post-wise
and category-wise vacancies requisitioned under CRP-RRBs-IX
vide letter dated 28.12.2020. However, BRKGB by a subsequent
communication dated 05.02.2021 asked IBPS to allot selected
candidates stating inter alia that the sponsor bank had allowed it
to continue with the recruitment for financial year 2020-21 against
the following posts:
Post Total
Vacancy
Officer Scale-III 24
Officer Scale -II 126
Officer Scale -I 196
Office Assistant (M) 200
The recruiting agency i.e. IBPS declined the request dated
05.02.2021 stating that once the provisional allotment is
complete, the same is final as no change or re-allotment can be
made. Consequently, no candidate was provisionally allotted to
BRKGB.
The appellants approached the learned Single Bench of this
court praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing IBPS
to forward the names of qualified candidates as per merit and
preference against available vacancies of Officer Scale-II (GBO) in
(5 of 13) [SAW-100/2022]
BRKGB. The learned Single Bench dismissed the writ petition vide
judgment dated 17.12.2021 holding that recruitment process had
already culminated into completion along with allotment of
vacancies on 03.02.2021. Thus, the decision taken by IBPS for not
including 126 vacancies of Officer Scale-II (GBO) available with
BRKGB cannot be gone into under extraordinary writ jurisdiction
under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants argued
that IBPS had no authority to deny allotment of suitable
candidates to BRKGB against the vacancies of Officer Scale-II
(GBO). Counsel further argued that IBPS is merely recruiting
agency entrusted with the responsibility of conducting
recruitment process to fill up various posts in Regional Rural Banks
through direct recruitment and promotions. The role of a
recruiting agency is confined only to identifying best suitable
candidates against posts requisitioned by the employer.
Per Contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of IBPS
argued that the respondent-IBPS is a body of experts from various
fields having specialisation, expertise and infrastructure for
conducting examinations. The sole function of IBPS in the instant
recruitment process was selecting suitable candidates for the RRBs
against various posts as per their requirements. The final decision
with regard to appointment/final selection/recruitment rests with
the participating RRBs subject to eligibility criteria enunciated by
them. Counsel submitted that in the present case, BRKGB
withdrew its vacancies vide letter dated 28.12.2020 and therefore,
no candidates was provisionally allotted to BRKGB on 03.02.2021
against the vacancies of Officer Scale-II (GBO). BRKGB
(6 of 13) [SAW-100/2022]
subsequently vide letter dated 05.02.2021 requested IBPS to
provisionally allot candidates against 126 vacancies of Officer
Scale-II (GBO). The request was declined as recruitment process
had already consummated with the provisional allotment of
candidates to the RRBs on 03.02.2021.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of BRKGB submitted
that vide letter dated 03.06.2020, BRKGB requested IBPS to
initiate recruitment process for filling up various vacancies
including vacant posts of Officer Scale-II (GBO). The sponsor bank
after issuance of the notification dated 01.07.2020 instructed
BRKGB through letter dated 18.12.2020 to withhold the
recruitment process under CRP-RRBs-IX. BRKGB replied vide
letter dated 22.12.2020, to the sponsor bank stating that
vacancies have already been approved on 24.06.2020. Further,
the recruitment process for Officer Scale-II (GBO) stood
completed by IBPS and only the allotment of selected candidates
was left to be made to the RRBs. Therefore, the recruitment
process should be allowed to attain finality. Counsel further
submitted that in the aforementioned factual background, BRKGB
while awaiting response from sponsor bank, vide letter dated
28.12.2020 withdrew all the notified posts from the recruitment
process under CRP-RRBs-IX. NABARD in the intervening period,
vide communication dated 14.01.2021 suggested that the
withdrawal of vacancies at this stage may have serious
repercussions, therefore, the decision of withdrawing from
recruitment process may be reconsidered in consultation with
sponsor bank. Thereupon, vide letter dated 05.02.2021, the
sponsor bank i.e. BOB permitted BRKGB to fill up the notified
(7 of 13) [SAW-100/2022]
vacancies for various posts. Hence, IBPS was requested through
e-mail/letter dated 05.02.2021 to allot candidates as per the
vacancies intimated vide letter dated 28.10.2020. Learned counsel
submitted that BRKGB and sponsor bank have no objection
whatsoever if selected candidates are allotted against available
notified vacancies. (Emphasis supplied.)
We have carefully considered and analysed the rival
contentions advanced by the counsel for the parties and perused
the material available on record.
The Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to
as the Act of 1976) was enacted by the Parliament for
incorporation, regulation and winding up of Regional Rural Banks
with a view to developing the rural economy by providing, for the
purpose of development of agriculture, trade, commerce, industry
and other productive activities in the rural areas, credit and other
facilities, particularly to the small and marginal farmers,
agricultural labourers, artisans and small entrepreneurs and for
matters connected and incidental thereto. Section 2(f) of the Act
of 1976 defines RRBs as Regional Rural Banks established by a
notification in the official Gazette as provided under sub Section
(1) of Section 3 of the Act of 1976. The Sponsor Bank has been
defined under Section 2(g) of the Act of 1976 in relation to a
Regional Rural Banks to mean a Bank by which Regional Rural
Banks has been sponsored. Sub Section (3) of Section 3 of the Act
of 1976 mandates the Sponsor Bank to aid and assist the Regional
Rural Banks by subscribing to the share capital of Regional Rural
Banks; training personnel of Regional Rural Banks; and providing
such managerial and financial assistance as may be mutually
(8 of 13) [SAW-100/2022]
agreed between the Sponsor Bank and the Regional Rural Banks.
Section 8 of the Act of 1976 provides that the management of the
RRBs vests in the Board of Directors constituted under Section 9
of the Act of 1976. Further, Section 17 of the Act of 1976
empowers RRBs to appoint such number of officers and other
employees as it may consider necessary and desirable. Section 17
of the Act of 1976 is reproduced below for ready reference:-
"Staff of Regional Rural banks- (1) A Regional Rural
Bank may appoint such number of officers and
other employees as it may consider necessary or
desirable [in such manner as may be prescribed]
for the efficient performance of its functions and
may determine the terms and conditions of their
appointment and service:
Provided that it shall be lawful for a Sponsor Bank,
if requested so to do by a Regional Rural Bank
sponsored by it to send such number of officers or
other employees on deputation to the Regional
Rural Bank as may be necessary or desirable for
the efficient performance of its functions:
Provided further that the remuneration of officers
and other employees appointed by a Regional Rural
Bank shall be such as may be determined by the
Central Government, and, in determining such
remuneration, the Central Government shall have
due regard to the salary structure of the employees
of the State Government and the local authorities
of comparable level and status in the notified area.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), or any
other law for the time being in force, no award,
judgment, decree, decision or order of any
industrial tribunal, court or other authority, made
before the commencement of this Act, shall apply
to the terms and conditions in relation to the
persons appointed by a Regional Rural Bank.
(3) The officers and other employees of a Regional
Rural Bank shall exercise such powers and perform
such duties as may be entrusted or delegated to
them by the Board".
Section 29 of the Act of 1976 empowers the Central
Government to make Rules in consultation with the National Bank
(9 of 13) [SAW-100/2022]
and Sponsor Banks, by notification in official Gazette, for carrying
out provisions of this Act.
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 29 read with
Section 17 of the Act of 1976 and after due consultation with the
National Bank and Sponsor Banks, the Central Government
framed the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment of Officers and
Employees) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of
2017). The Rules of 2017 empowers the Board of Directors of the
RRBs to create such number of posts as are necessary and may
determine the number of vacancies to be filled up by direct
recruitment or promotion, keeping in view the provisions of these
Rules and guidelines issued by Central Government from time to
time. According to Rule 6 of Rules of 2017, the Chairman of RRBs
shall be the appointing authority in respect of Group 'A' posts and
the General Manager shall be the appointing authority in respect
of Group 'B' and Group 'C' posts, if so authorised by the Board of
concerned Regional Rural Banks.
The definition of 'approved agency' provided under Rule 2 (1)
(b) reads as under:-
"2. Definition:- (1) In these rules, unless the
context otherwise requires,-
(b) "approved agency" means the Institute of
Banking Personnel Selection or any other agency
approved by the Central Government for-
(i) conducting examination (written or on-
line) and interview for selection of the candidates
by direct recruitment to the Group 'A' posts
specified in column (3), against serial numbers 1, 2
and 3 of the First schedule; and
(ii) for conducting examination (written or on-line)
to Group 'B' posts specified in column (3), against
serial number 6, of the First Schedule;"
(10 of 13) [SAW-100/2022]
The approved agency i.e. the Institute of Banking Personnel
Selection (IBPS) in the present case after conducting examination
in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of 2017 forwarded
the provisional list of candidates for appointment to the concerned
RRBs.
After scrutinizing various provisions of the Act of 1976 and
Rules of 2017, the position that emerges is that each Regional
Rural Bank has been clothed with the powers to appoint such
number of officers and other employees as it may deem
necessary/desirable for efficient performance of its functions, on
such terms and conditions as may be determined from time to
time. The Sponsor Bank does not have any role in the matters
relating to recruitments in the RRBs other than extending aid and
assistance to RRBs by subscribing to share capital and training the
personnel working in connection with the affairs of the RRBs.
Also it can be safely concluded that the role of recruiting
agency i.e. IBPS is limited to the extent of conducting
examinations (written or on-line) and interviews for selecting
candidates by direct recruitment to the Group 'A' posts and for
conducting examination (written or on-line) to Group 'B' posts as
specified in the schedule annexed to the Rules of 2017.
Reverting to the facts of the case, the BRKGB conveyed its
post-wise and category-wise vacancies for various posts including
Officer Scale-II (GBO) category for direct recruitment to IBPS.
Thereafter, a notification dated 01.07.2020 was issued i.e. CRP-
RRBs-IX for filling up various posts available with RRBs. The
appellants submitted options in the online application forms
indicating BRKGB as their first preference for appointment. After
(11 of 13) [SAW-100/2022]
commencement of the selection process, the Sponsor Bank vide
letter dated 18.12.2020 instructed BRKGB to cancel direct
recruitment under CRP-RRBs-IX for the current and next financial
year. Consequently, no candidate was provisionally allotted to
BRKGB on 03.02.2021. After deliberations between sponsor bank,
NABARD and BRKGB, the matter was reconsidered and the
decision to withdraw vacancies notified on 01.07.2020 was
annulled. BRKGB vide letter dated 05.02.2021, requested IBPS to
allot candidates as per the vacancies intimated vide letter
28.10.2021. IBPS turned down the said request stating that
successful candidates as per the final merit of Officer Scale-II
(GBO) had been provisionally allotted to the RRBs.
The IBPS being a recruiting body consisting of experts acts
as a link between suitable candidates with required eligibility for
banking services and participating banks/financial
institutions/other organisations searching for prospective
candidates as per the operational requirements. The action of
IBPS in declining to allot the candidates against advertised
vacancies of BRKGB on the ground that provisional allotment of
candidates to RRBs in order of merit and preference had already
been made cannot be said to the justified. The Recruiting Agency
cannot deny allotment of eligible candidates to participating RRBs
arbitrarily especially when sufficient number of candidates are
available with it. The whole exercise cannot be reduced to a farce.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash v.
Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47, held as under:
"It is not correct to say that if a number of
vacancies are notified for appointment and
adequate number of candidates are found fit, the
(12 of 13) [SAW-100/2022]
successful candidates acquire an indefeasible
right to be appointed which cannot be
legitimately denied, Ordinarily the notification
merely amounts to an invitation to qualified
candidates to apply for recruitment and on their
selection they do not acquire any right to the
post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so
indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill
up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does.
not mean that the State has the licence of acting
in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up
the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for
appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any
of them are filled up, the State is bound to
respect the comparative merit of the candidates,
as reflected at the recruitment test, and no
discrimination can be permitted. This correct
position has been consistently followed by this
court, and we do not find any discordant note in
the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subhash
Chander Marwaha, (1974) 1 SCR 165; Miss
Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, (1986) 4
SCC 268 and Jitendra Kumar v. State of Punjab,
(1985) 1 SCR 899."
Similarly, in the case of East Coast Railway and another
v. Mahadev Appa Rao & others (2010) 7 SCC 678, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed as under:
"The State does not enjoy an unqualified
prerogative to arbitrarily refuse appointment.
The validity of the State's decision not to make
an appointment is a matter which is not beyond
judicial review. As the State does not have the
license of acting in an arbitrary manner, the least
which candidates, who were otherwise eligible
for appointment and who have appeared in the
examination that constitutes a step-in-aid of a
possible appointment in their favour, are entitled
to is to ensure that the selection process is not
allowed to be scuttled for malafide reasons or in
an arbitrary manner."
We may hasten to add that if the decision of IBPS not to
include 126 vacancies of BRKGB in the recruitment process in
question is upheld then it will not only deprive the appellants from
appointment in their preferred RRB indicated in the online
(13 of 13) [SAW-100/2022]
application form i.e. BRKGB but will also hinder prospective
candidates from seeking appointment on the post of Officer Scale-
II (GBO) available in RRBs in order of merit. IBPS cannot refuse to
recommend names of eligible and suitable candidates to fill up all
notified vacancies if the candidates of desired merit are available.
Any delay occasioned in filling up the notified vacancies may
render many eligible candidates ineligible to participate in next
recruitment process.
In the light of above discussion, the special appeal is
allowed. IBPS is directed to allot 126 candidates against the post
of Officer Scale-II (GBO) to BRKGB in order of merit and
preference. The seats falling vacant thereof due to aforesaid
exercise in participating RRBs, shall be filled in by recommending
suitable candidates to RRBs in order of merit and preference. The
entire exercise indicated above shall be completed within a period
of three months from the date of this order.
No order as to costs.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
27-KshamaD/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
