- (1.) R. K. Mahajan, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that a writ or direction may be issued in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondent No. 5 to appoint the petitioner as an officer in the Alakhnanda Gramin Bank like other appointees from the batch of officers selected on the basis of the said respondent's indent of March, 1989. He has further prayed that he be given seniority in which the petitioner was selected and he further prayed that respondents be directed that nothing should be done which prejudices petitioner's joining new service envisaged for the proposed Rural Bank of India at parity with the other appointees of his batch on the basis of advertisement issued in March, 1989.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the petition relating to the present controversy are as follows. The petitioner appeared in the selection examination conducted in March, 1989 by the Banking Service Recruitment Board for tentative vacancies which are likely to occur in different Rural Banks. Exact number of vacancies was not mentioned in the advertisement. The petitioner got a letter of selection dated 31-8-1990, as per annexure No. 1 to the writ peti tion, from the Banking Service Recruitment Board. The purport of this letter is that the petitioner qualified the written test as well as interview and has been recommended to Alakhaanda Rural Bank for giving appointment. It is made clear in this letter explicitly that this selection is subject to the need or the requirement of the Bank after verifying the testimonials. It was also unequivocally made clear that this letter should not be considered as letter of appointment and was advised that now the Banking Service Recruitment Board has no concern. The grievance of the petition is that another advertisement in June, 1990 was floated for filling more vacancies per indent of the respondent No. 5 without taking the candidates from the previous selection from which the petitioner belonged. The photo copy of the advertisement dated 10-6-1990 is annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. The petitioner has been tirelessly corresponding with the respondents to offer him an appointment and even did not join alternative appointment having expectation that he would be offered job and under the circumstances the writ has been filed that the Banks have filled up the vacancies without giving him employment/absorbing him in future vacancies of advertisement issued in 1990. The respondents submit as per the counter-affidavit as well as annexure No. S. C. A. 3 to the supplementary counter-affidavit, the merit list of Officers project 89 written test was held on 5-11-1989 and the petitioner Santosh Kumar Sah was at S. No. 12. In para 5 of the supplementary counter-affidavit it is mentioned that candidates belonging from S. No. 1 to 7 from General category and candidates at S. No. 15 belonging to General category were issued appointment letters. However, since the can didates at S. No. 5 Sunil Kumar Sinha did not report within the time mentioned in the appointment letter, in his place the candidate at S. No. 8 Shri Bimal Jeet Singh was issued appointment letter. Similarly candidate mentioned at S. No. 15 (Reserved category) did not report within the time mentioned in the appointment letter and candidate mentioned at S. No. 16 Jyoti Prasad was issued appointment letter. It has been categorically mentioned that after issuance of letter to Shri Bimal Jeet Singh on 6-2-1981 at S. No. 8 no further appointment letter has been issued. It is further submitted that in view of guidelines/rules and policy issued/or framed by the Reserve Bank of India/nabard/sponsoring Bank remaining candidates could not be absorbed.
(3.) IT is revealed from the Supplementary Counter Affidavit that in the year 1990 only 5 vacancies were projected for the officer cadre and then it was reduced to two candidates and later on it was treated to be as nil, as mentioned in para No. 3 of the supplementary counter-affidavit. IT is further submitted in the supplementary counter affidavit that there was shrinkage of workload in the Regional Rural Banks on account of Reserve Bank of India direction and implementation of National Industrial Tribunal award on all the Regional Rural Banks. The implementation of the award gave parity of allowances to the officers and employees of the Regional Rural Banks vis-a-vis their counter parts in the sponsoring banks. Thus it resulted into heavy financial liabilities. Implementation of the award stopped the expected resignation of the officers as it gave benefit to the officers. Besides this the implementation of the Agriculture and Rural Debt Relief Scheme also reduced the number of accounts. Further more the introduction of the Service Area Approach Scheme reduced the scope of Rural Banks as each Rural Bank was allowed number of villages. Com mercial Banks also made in roads into villages. All these factors resulted in shrinking of the workload in the Regional Rural Banks and ultimately less expansion of them. Thus it resulted into heavy financial constraint. IT is alleged that these factors led into the shrinkage of the expansion of banks also chances of more recruitment and promotion etc. Shri Paiesh Tandon, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should have been absorbed in future vacancies of advertisement of June, 1990, as future vacancies were filled up by virtue of direct adver tisement. He further submits that the service of the petitioner is just like All India Service and the petitioner has legitimate expectation to be absorbed. Just like other candidates from the same merit list. The respondents' counsel submits that since it was a need based programme, the candi dates were to be absorbed per requirement of the Banks, respondent No. 5 and policy of the Government. It is further submitted that exact number of vacancies was not advertised and only tentative vacancies have been mentioned in the 1989 advertisement.;