- (1.) Respondent No. 2 the Karnal Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Karnal through advertisement dated 7th of March, 1979, invited applications for various posts, namely Senior/Junior Accountants, Clerks, Cashiers, Steno-typists, Guard and Peons. The petitioners and others applied. On 28th of June, 1979, a Selection Committee authorised to prepare a list of the selected candidates, after interview prepared list Annexure P.4 to C.W.P. No. 3925 of 1979, which included the names of the petitioners. This list had to be finally approved by the Board of Directors of Respondents No. 2. However, it was a different list, Annexure P.7 to C.W.P. No. 3925 of 1979, that was placed before the Board of Directors for approval instead of list Annexure P.4 to C.W.P. No. 3125 of 1979. Through Writ Petition No. 4925 of 1979, the above action of the Selection Committee was challenged by Sahib Singh on the ground that the Selection Committee had suppressed the original list, Annexure P.4 and submitted another list Annexure P.7 which contained the names of person who had not even applied or appeared for interview and some of the persons included therein were relations of the Selection Committee and others. The Bench passed the following order dated 3rd December, 1979 on the undertaking given by the counsel for respondent No. 2 :- "Return has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2. It is not denied that the signatures of the members of the Selection Committee are borne on both the lists (Annexure P.4 and P.7). On the last date of hearing the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 undertook to produce before us the record containing the interview chart and other relevant papers so as to show that the candidates mentioned in the list Annexure P.7 were actually selected in accordance with merit. No such record has been produced today. However, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has stated before us that the selection is to be finally made by the Board of Directors of the Central Co- operative Bank Ltd., Karnal and that the views of the interviewing committee are not final. The learned counsel has given as undertaking before us that the said Board of Directors shall take into consideration both the lists Annexure P.4 and P.7 and shall select the candidates for appointment in accordance with merit. He has further given an undertaking that in case any candidate is found to have not applied in time in pursuance of the advertisement made or if he was not actually interviewed by the committee, such a candidate shall not be considered as he cannot be said to have fulfilled the requisite qualification for the post. On this statement having been made, the learned counsel for the petitioners prays that this petition be dismissed as withdrawn. We order accordingly.
(2.) Respondent No. 2 instead of complying with the order dated December 3, 1979 passed on the undertaking given by it, sought to make ad hoc appointments which included no names from the said two lists Annexure P.4 and P.7. Not only that respondent No. 2 invited applications for the posts of Clerks, Peons and Guards through a fresh advertisement in the Daily Tribune dated 16th September, 1980. 27th September, 1980 was fixed the last date of application and 29th September, 1980 for interview. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 had then again to come to this Court in order to challenge the said action of respondent No. 2 through C.W.P. No. 3124 of 1980. This Court stayed selections to be so made and thereafter disposed of the writ petition by passing the following agreed order on October 3, 1980 :- "Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the Board of Directors will first make selection from lists Annexure P.4 and P.7 vide this Court's order dated 3rd December, 1979 in C.W.P. No. 3925 of 1979 and that the petitioners will appear for interview as and when they are called. Before exhausting the lists above said, the Board of Directors shall not make new appointments. The Board of Directors to act in accordance with the undertaking given by the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 in C.W.P. No. 3925 of 1979, which is Annexure P.9 to this writ petition. This writ petition stands disposed of accordingly."
(3.) Thereafter a review petition was filed by respondent No. 2, which was dismissed by the Bench with the following order dated January 13, 1981 :- "Our order dated 3rd October, 1980, sought to be reviewed, was passed in accordance with the agreement arrived at by the learned counsel for the parties. No case for review thereof is made out. Dismissed.";