- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Petitioners, who have filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India mainly prays for a writ, order or direc tion commanding the respondent to issue appointment letters in their favour for the post of clerk Grade II and Coin-cum-Note examiners Grade II (Gra duate) in pursuance of the select list in the year 1981 and not to appoint any person against the said posts till the petitioners are appointed.
(2.) IN brief, the facts of the case are that in the year 1980 the Reserve Bank of INdia published an advertisement for the posts of clerk Grade II/coin-cum-Note Examiner Grade II (Graduate ). As may as 300 vacancies of the said posts were advertised. Petitioners, who were qualified to be appointed on the said posts, applied for appointments. They were, thereafter required to appear in the written test and were ultimately declared successful in the same. They were also called for interview in the months of July/august, 1981. The inter view Board also found the petitioners suitable for the appointment on the said posts and recommended their names to be included in the select list. Vide letter dated 10-12-1991 petitioners were informed that they were selected for appointment on the said posts, and their names were included in the waiting list. The names of the petitioner No. 1 was at serial number 299. The names of petitioner Mos. 2, 3 and 4 were at serial Nos. 425, 414 and 447 respectively. During the year 1982 out of 443 candidates, only 213 were appointed, although at the relevant time there existed more than 300 vacancies. Since the respondents have been giving assurance to the petitioners to appoint them, therefore, they did not agitate the matter before any court or authority. However, when the respondents have adopted the policy of pick and choose and started appointing candidate arbitrarily, petitioner No. 1 filed a civil suit No. 1504 of 1983 in the court of Munsif City, Kanpur and also prayed for grant of temporary injunction. Petitioner No. 1 was, however, thereafter advised to withdraw the suit and to file the present petition. Respondents instead of appointing the petitioners and other candidates from the select list prepared in the year 1980, have made another advertisement and proceeded to prepare another waiting list in the year 1982, which was not only prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners, but void and illegal in the eyes of law, in as much as without exhausting select list prepared in the year 1980, it was not open to the respondent to prepare another select list, in view of previous practice, which was invogues since 1962 till 1980. The respondents were also stated to have made appointment of certain persons named in paragraph 10 in the year 1983 out of the select list of 1980 in totally arbitrary and illegal manner. It was further stated that since the respondent being an instrumentality of states was the state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It has no right to act arbitrary in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Serve Sri Ramesh Chandra Pandey and Sureya Narain Shukla, whose names figured at serial numbers 361 and 375 respectively in the select list were given appointments, wholly arbitrarily, ignoring the claim of the petitioners. Petitioners in brief contended that without exhaust ing the select list prepared in 1980 it was not open to the respondents either to prepare any other select list or to appoint any candidate out of turn and they are under law entitled to be appointed on the posts in question, but respon dents were acting wholly arbitrarily and instead of appointing them, were ap pointing the other persons, who are not legally entitled to be appointed. In the counter affidavit of Sri M. R. Kamath filed on behalf the respondents firstly procedure of appointment through recruitment call written test interview etc. of the candidates, preparation of writing list and appoint ment of the candidates on the vacancy which arise during the course of year have been stated and it has been contended that the candidates whose names appeared en the waiting list have no right for appointment nor the said wait ing list can be construed as a commitment to offer an appointment. The fact regarding advertisement made for 300 posts including preparation of select list and entry of the petitioners' name in the same, their placement as stated in the writ petition and the appointment of 213 candidates has been admitted. No specific reply with respect to the facts stated in paragraph Nos. 11 and 11 wherein institution of appointments of candidates after 1982 out of the select list of 1981-82 were given but only evasive and vague replies have been given. It has further been stated that Sri S. N. Shukla and Sri R. K. Pandey belonged to the category of Ex-servicemen and they were appointed in the said quota. In brief it was asserted that it was not necessary to make appointments without exhausting the select list prepared for the previous years. The facts stated in paragraph No. 13, in which paragraph 8 of the circular was quoted only a vague reply has been given. The respondents have thus asserted that they are not bound to appoint persons who were selected and whose names were entered in the select/waiting list prepared by them.
(3.) IN the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners the facts stated in the writ petition are reiterated and re-affirmed, in reply to the facts stated in the counter affidavit. The petitioners have in paragraph 8 of the rejoinder affidavit quoted and relied upon paragraph 8 of the circular and con tended that it was no where indicated in the said circular that the select list was valid only for a period of one year. On the other hand assurances of appointment was given to the candidates whose' names were finally heard in the select list. It was also stated that even assuming without admitting that select list was for a period till 31-8-1982 as claimed by the respondents, there was no justification for them to make advertisement in the month of August, 1982. The petitioners in the rejoinder affidavit thus contended that it was obligatory upon the respondents after selecting the petitioners to consider them for appointment on the post in question particularity when numbers of posts were lying vacant ands it is evident from the fact that in the month of August, 1982 as many as 140 posts were advertised. The petitioners have also stated that the conducts of the respondents were apparently discriminatory and violative to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of INdia inasmuch as they have adopted the policy of pick and choose and to appoint the candidates out of turn who were legally not entitled to be appointed it was further stated that Sri R. P. Pandey and Sri S. N. Shukla who were placed much below the peti tioners names in the waiting list, were illegally appointed by the respondents. The plea that they belonged to category of Ex-servicemen was totally miscon ceived inasmuch as in the advertisement in question no such category was notified nor any reservation for Ex-servicemen was provided for. It was stated that the writ petition was, therefore, liable to be allowed. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and carefully gone through the record of the case.;