M. L. Bhat, J. - (1.) THESE two writ petitions can be decided by a common judgment because common questions of law and fact are involved in both the writ petitions.
(2.) THE common facts on which two writ petitions are based reveal that Gramin Banks were established by the Union of India to provide banking facilities in rural areas. For the supervision and control of the Gramin Banks, an autonomous body known as National Bank of Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) has been set up by the Union of India. THE said banks are under the direct control of Union of India and its policies with regard to method of recruitment of employees and finances etc are formulated by the Union of India. THE Gramin Banks are affiliated to any one of the nationalised banks. In these petitions it is averred that respondent No. 1 (Gramin Bank) is affiliated to Bank of India which is a nationalised Bank. Respondent No. 1 is said to have advertised the vacancies for the posts of officers, field officers and junior clerk-cum-cashier in the daily newspaper 'Aaj' on 21-8-84. In response to the said advertisement the petitioners are said to have applied for the post of field officers. Written test was held on January 13, 1985 for selection to the post of field officers. The petitioners were declared successful and they were called for interview which was held on different dates. The petitioners' case Is that they were finally declared successful and qualified for being appointed as field officer against the available vacancies. Their result was published in a local newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' on 27-5-85. In the advertisement dated 21-8-84 by which the applications were invited, number of vacancies were not mentioned. The merit list of successful candidates was prepared in proportion to the number of vacancies in existence and keeping in view the likely vacancies to be created in future. A condition was imposed in the selection list for the first time that the list of selected candidates would remain valid only for twelve months According to this condition, the list of selected candidates would have expired on 27-5-86. Despite the alleged expiry of the list five more candidates, 3 from general category bearing roll Numbers 0481, 0169 and 0244 end 2 candidates from schedule caste category bearing roll numbers 0075 and 0049 were allowed to join on the post in the month of August, 1986.
(3.) THE petitioners contended that the select list cannot be cancelled and it has to remain operative till all the candidates who have qualified for being appointed are absorbed against the posts and the select list could not be cancelled on expiry of 12 months because the condition with regard to expiry of selection list after 12 months is bad in law and against the notification dated 8-2-82 issued by the Ministry 'of Home Affairs, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. According to this notification further selection is to be postponed till the selected candidates mentioned in the selection list are accommodated. It is submitted that till the list is exhausted no fresh list can be made. THE Respondents are trying to fill up the vacancies and nave advertised the poets without accommodating the petitioners against the posts in pursuance of the selection list dated 27-5-85. It is contended that there are 84, branches of Gramin bank in the district of Farrukhabad and there are vacancies of the post of field supervisors against which the petitioners are to be appointed. It is contended that the petitioners have been continuously approaching the respondents for appointing them as field officers on the basis of the petitioners being qualified for selection but their representation has not been considered so far. On the other hand the petitioners were informed that the select list was valid only for one year and after expiry of one year, the petitioners could not be appointed on the basis of the said select list which has become ineffective after one year. The petitioners strongly refuted this condition and submitted that select list cannot be cancelled till they are appointed against the available vacancies. The respondents also bad not treated the list as cancelled because they had made appointments on the basis of select list even after the expiry of one year's period. The action of the respondents is said to be arbitrary and violative of the petitioners' right.;