A.L. Bahri, J. - (1.) Rajeev Mahajanand four others, petitioners, are working as Clerks in the State Bank of India, Chandigarh Circle. They challenged the action of the State Bank of India, the respondent, in not appointing the petitioners as Programmer-cum-Operators in violation of the policy decision, Annexure P.l. They further seek direction to the respondent-bank to appoint them as such in this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
(2.) Rajeev Mahajan and G.C. Kaushik petitioners joined the respondent-bank in 1978 and other petitioners joined in between 1980 and 1982. On May 3, 1986, the policy was formulated to provide promotional opportunities as Programmer-cum-Operators (specialised cadre) from amongst the clerical staff. The eligibility conditions were provided that there should be four years experience as Clerk with minimum educational qualifications as Graduate/Post-Graduate from a recognised University in the specified subjects and that maximum age limit was fixed at 35 years. The guidelines provided for promotion to J.M. G.S.I. were to be applicable. As per this decision, an aptitude test was to be held followed by interview of the candidates. For aptitude test, the ratio of candidates to be called was to be 3:1 i.e. three candidates for one vacancy and for interview, number of candidates to be called was to be 11/2 times the number of vacancies and further the rejections in interview were expected to be not more than 10 to 15 per cent of the number of candidates interviewed. This policy decision is contained in Annexure P.2. Annexure P.4. is the circular issued on July 9,1987 for holding the aptitude test in August/September, 1987 for the appointment of Programmer-cum-Operators. The eligibility date was fixed as August 1, 1987. Subsequently, this date was changed to April 30, 1988 vide circular letter Annexure P.5. As per stand of the petitioners, this date was arbitrarily changed. For about sixteen vacancies occurring at that time, about fifty persons were proposed to be called for aptitude test. After the cut off date was changed, more than hundred candidates were allowed to compete for the aptitude test which was in violation of the policy decision referred to above. The respondent-Bank prepared the result of the aptitude test and called twenty candidates for interview, as is apparent from Annexure P.7. This was also against the policy decision.
(3.) The stand of the respondent-Bank in the written statement is that when initially applications were invited for sixteen vacancies, the number of applicants was less than the required number. Hence, subsequently fresh applications were invited as by lapse of time some other persons had become eligible. After holding the test, twenty persons at the top are being called for interview for filling up sixteen posts in accordance with the guidelines received from the headquarters that the rejections in the interview should not be more than 10 to 15 per cent of the number of vacancies to be filled.;