Rajiv Narain Raina, J. - (1.) Today, Mr. Chahar appearing for the Bank-1st respondent has produced an order dated October 7, 2016 appointing the petitioner as a Manager in the Haryana State Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. Though the order has been passed and communicated to the petitioner but Mr. Lamba says that the petitioner has not been made to join the post so far. The order is retained on record as Mark 'A'.
(2.) Though appointment has been offered but it has been treated as a fresh appointment and to this extent Mr. Lamba submits that the petitioner has a grievance. If the petitioner joins without protest, he will lose his right to some of the service benefits which might be available to him by reason of having approached this Court in 1996 challenging the selection and appointment of the private respondent. In the present petition, in order to press his rights to secure an appointment as against the terribly weak rights of the private respondent, who is no doubt a product of nepotism being the son of a sitting Director of the Bank namely Sher Singh Yadav, the petitioner claims antecedent rights at par with the private respondent since he is retained in service, especially when Rule 9.2 (e) of the Bank Rules totally prohibited the appointment.
(3.) Mr. Lamba submits that he may not be compelled to initiate fresh proceedings to claim benefits that might be available to him including retrospective seniority, pay at par with the private respondent, promotions, if any, that fell in the way and earned by the private respondent during the interregnum, including claim to pension and terminal benefits by treating the period of service notionally from the date when the private respondent was appointed. These are non-pecuniary benefits which the petitioner would be eminently entitled to as a result of declaration of his rights not by the Court but by the Bank itself in the process of consideration of his case in the light of two interim orders passed by this Court, which have led to the offer of appointment. The first interim order was passed on July 25, 2016 and reads as follows:- "In order to balance out the equities between the case of Sanjay Yadav, who apparently was appointed contrary to the prohibition contained in Rule 9.2(e) of the General Conditions Relating to Staff Service Rules that a Director's son cannot be appointed in the respondent-Bank and the case of petitioning Ravinder Singh, who both were placed in the waiting list and had secured equal number of marks i.e. 22, therefore the Bank has to be put to notice. Besides, there is a third candidate, who has also secured 22 marks. Neither any tie-breaking rule has been shown to Court nor was a conscious decision taken after the Bank was confronted with a situation where three persons had secured equal marks, thereby prescribing a tie-breaker rule by compulsion and to enforce it uniformly, fairly and honestly. It is not disputed that Sanjay Yadav was the son of the sitting Director of the Bank, namely, Sher Singh Yadav and Rule 9.2(e) prohibited his appointment. As against an illegal appointment offered to Sanjay Yadav the claim of the petitioner has been ignored in what appears to be product of illegality and nepotism. This passing over the right of consideration of the petitioner is despite the fact that Sanjay Yadav had approached this Court in CWP No.6484 of 1996 challenging the selection complaining that another selected candidate was also the son of the Director of the Bank relying on Rule 9.2(e) itself. Strange argument it was to make when two negatives do not always make a positive. The petition was dismissed in default of appearance and was conveniently not revived thereafter and even after nullification of the entire selection, candidates returned to hold office as Managers. There is no gainsaying that the selection process has been upheld in judgment produced by Mr. Gill, learned Senior counsel appearing for R-2 in CWP No.8763 of 2002 (Satyapal v. State of Haryana & ors.) and connected cases decided on 8.8.2012 upheld in LPA No.1839 of 2013 wherein the appeals filed by the respondent-Bank against the order of the learned single judge were dismissed on several grounds including grounds of delay and laches vide order dated 14.11.2013. Photocopies of the judgments are retained on record. As said before, in order to balance out the competing interests by an equitable dispensation the Bank will take a decision whether it is prepared to offer appointment to the petitioner or suffer prospect of nullification of the appointment of Sanjay Yadav despite passage of time, an issue which was not considered and decided in the litigation . Accordingly, learned counsel for the Bank to obtain instructions and place them on record in writing regarding the views of the respondent Bank. List again on 1.8.2016.";