M.L.Bhat, J. - (1.) COMMON questions of law and facts are raised in these seven petitions, therefore, these are decided together by a common judgment. In all the writ petitions the main controversy revolves round the question of respondent No. 1's responsibility to appoint the petitioners as Field Supervisor/Field Officers, against the declared vacancies, in order of merit which is assigned to all the petitioners in the list of selected candidates. In writ petition No. 18342 of 1988 reliance is placed on the agreement dated 13 -10 -1985 by which the petitioners and the respondent bank are said to have arrived at a settlement to fill up the vacancies in the bank so as to put an end to the agitation which was resorted to by the selected candidates. The petitioners' case is that advertisement for selection of 35 Field Officers/Field Supervisors was issued by the respondents -bank on 18 -7 -1983. The petitioners are said to have filed applications in pursuance of the said advertisement for being appointed against the said vacancies. A written test was conducted for selection. The petitioners were declared successful in the written test. Thereafter, they were called for interview and after the interview was held, the petitioners were placed in the list of selected candidates and thus became eligible as qualified candidates, for being appointed on the post which were declared available by the Bank. It is stated that after the advertisement was issued, by a separate resolution, the number of posts were increased from 35 to 55 and as a result of that 55 candidates for the post of Field Officers/Field Supervisors became available with the Bank. The respondent -bank is said to have appointed only 26 Field Supervisors and 36 officers from the panel of successful candidates. The panel prepared by the Bank was to remain operative for one year. The life is said to have been extended for a period of six months in its meeting held on 28 -3 -1985. Despite the availability of the vacancies and despite the extension of time, the petitioners were not accommodated. A group of persons who were brought on the list of selected candidates are said to have initiated an agitation against non -appointment of the persons already selected. An agreement is said to have been arrived at between the officers of the bank and the members of the Union in presence of the District Magistrate, Jhansi and State Minister (Finance) Government of U.P. and the Chairman of the Bank. The Bank is said to have agreed that panel of selected candidates will be further extended till it is exhausted and no appointment shall be made from out side till all the selected candidates are absorbed by the respondent bank. The agreement is said to have been ratified by the Board on 16 -10 -1985.
(2.) THE panel has not exhausted as yet and no person has been appointed after the appointment of 26 persons from the list of selected candidates, on the post of Field Supervisors/Field Officers by the Bank. The petitioners also have not been appointed against the available vacancies. Fresh advertisement is said to have been issued inviting applications for selection on the post of officers, junior clerks and cashier by the Banking Service Recruitment Hoard, Lucknow. One Lakhan Lal Gupta is said to have filed a writ petition challenging the action of the Bank for calling applications for recruitment of officers without absorbing the selected candidates from the panel prepared in the year 1984. The writ petition is said to have been dismissed because the calling of the application was held not to affect the right of the petitioner at that stage. In the meantime, the respondents are said to have decided to appoint respondent Nos. 3 to 6 in the Bank with effect from 1 -10 -1988. The petitioners claim that in all 48 posts of Supervisors and Field Officers are still vacant. The appointment of respondent Nos. 3 to 6 is also challenged as being void. The petitioners' case is that without absorbing the petitioners' the bank cannot appoint any person as Field Officer/Field Supervisor. In the other writ petitions, there is no settlement or agreement but the petitioners' claim is that the vacancies have been increased and posts have not been filled up. The respondent -bank is trying to appoint the persons by issuing advertisement notice or by ignoring the list of a selected candidates. It is stated that unless the list of selected candidates prepared in 1984 is exhausted the respondent bank cannot make any appointment, against the vacancies which they have declared before making the list of selected candidates. Reliance is placed on Government of India Notification dated 8 -2 -1982 issued by the Ministry of Home affairs, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, which provides that once a person is declared successful, according to the merit of selected candidates, further recruitment will be postponed, till all the candidates are accommodated. It is stated that it is the responsibility of the respondents to appoint the petitioners against the available vacancies. The fresh advertisement which is issued on 11 -7 -1987 is also said to be bad because it violates the notification dated 8 -2 -1982.
(3.) ON the aforesaid facts, a writ of mandamus is sought against the respondents to direct them to appoint the petitioners against the existing vacancies or against the vacancies which may occur on the post of officers in any of the branches of the bank. A writ of prohibition is claimed that respondents be restrained from filling up the vacancies of the post of Field Officers/Field Supervisors either by direct recruitment or by promotion till the petitioners are absorbed.;