ASHOK KUMAR Vs. CHAIRMAN BANKING SERVICE RECRUITMENT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is rather unfortunate that the Recruitment Boards have adopted wholly unconstitutional procedure in selecting candidates for candidates for the Sate Bank of India ['SBI', for short] and other nationalised Banks in Eastern Region of India. On April, 19,1982, a requisition was given by the SBI for recruitment of 960 vacancies. Equally, other nationalised Banks pooled together and had given requisition for recruitment of 1713 vacancies.

(2.) It would be clear that in 1983, while making Recruitment Board for the SBI prepared a select list in excess of the requirement notified by the respective Banks i.e., 3100 candidates were put in the select list to be appointed by the State Bank of India. Equally, since vacancies had arisen to the extent of 6700, combined examination Board for the national Banks made a mess in the recruitment of the candidates in excess of the notified vacancies.

(3.) It would also appear that with a view to clear the mess created by Recruitment Boards, a high power Committee was constituted by the Ministry of Finance, Banking Division. The high- power Committee had gone into the question and recommended that instead of calling fresh applications for the vacancies that had arisen between the date of the notification for recruitment and the date of selection made by the respective Boards, it had directed the Banks to adjust the candidates whose names found place in the wait list prepared by the Recruitment Board for the SBI in the vacancies to be filled up in the nationalised Banks. In process, Mohammed Shahzad, appellant No. 3 who was standing at No. 2156 of the merit list for the Nationalised Banks was not appointed. Consequently, he filed a writ petition in the High Court. Appellants 1 and 2 appear to have filed an application for intervention. Other 27 persons appear to have filed another writ petition. The High Court dismissed both the writ petitions. Thus appellants 1 and 2 along with Mohammed Shahzad, the original writ petitioner before the High Court. have filed these appeals.