RAJESH BALIA, J. - (1.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the respondent -Dungarpur -Banswara -Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Dungarpur is a creature of Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. It is financed by National Bank of Agriculture and Rural Development (for short, ' NABARD') and is sponsored by the Bank of Baroda, which is a nationalised Bank. The respondent Bank issued an advertisement on 16.11.1985 for appointment of 30 officers in the services of the respondent Bank. As a result of written examination and interview, the Bank prepared a list of selected candidates which is produced as Annx. 7 with the writ petition, in which the name of the petitioner finds place at serial No. 33. Apparently, 30 names were empanelled against the advertised vacancies and 3 candidates were included as reserve, for, 10% of the total number of vacancies were to be included in the panel as reserved -list; of the selected candidates. In the intimation given to the petitioner vide Annx. 2, it was made clear that name of the petitioner has been placed on the panel to be utilised for filling up the future vacancies. This panel was to be valid upto 29th February, 1988. Out of the names included in the aforesaid panel Annx. 7, only 24 persons were initially offered appointment. By the resolution dated 19.2.1988, the Board of Directors of the respondent -Bank resolved to extend the life of the panel for a period of 6 months from 1.3.1988. It is further alleged by the petitioner that in the month of July, 1988, the Board of Directors of the respondent -Bank decided to give appointment to aforesaid selected candidates from the panel, subject to permission by NABARD. The NABARD, through intimation in the month of August, permitted the respondent -Bank to make appointments by 31st August, 1988. However, the respondent -Bank failed to make appointments even upto 31st August, 1988 from the remaining candidates of the aforesaid panel Annx. 7. Instead, the Bank issued an advertisement dated 1 2.8.1 988 for fresh recruitments.
(2.) SHRI Dinesh Kumar, Madan Puri, Umed Ujwal and Shri Mangal Ram Verma, who were placed at Serial Numbers 25, 29, 31 and 32 respectively; filed writ petitions No. 1 of 1989, 3758 of 1988, 3757 of 1989 and 90 of 1989 respectively, before this Court for the relief that once their names have found place in the panel of selected candidates and the life of the panel has been extended upto 31st August, 1 988, the respondent -Bank was bound to offer appointment to them before making fresh recruitments. The petitioner did not file writ petition then nor did he make any representation in this regard at anytime. The aforesaid writ petitions were allowed by judgment dated April 11, 1991 Before the aforesaid judgment was delivered by this Court but during the pendency of the said writ petitions, the selections had also taken place in pursuance of the advertisement dated 1 2.8.1 988 and appointments were offered to the persons selected in pursuance of the fresh selections. Since the aforesaid four petitions filed by the aforesaid four persons named in the panel Ex. 7, were allowed; the petitioner has filed this writ petition for grant of the same relief which has been granted to other four persons whose names found place in the panel, after filing a representation before the respondent -Bank vide his letter dated 14.10.1991 and serving a notice for demand of justice, dated 29.11.1991.
(3.) THE short contention of the petitioner is that the reliefs granted in the decision of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3758 of 1988 and connected cases, decided on April 11,1991 (supra) has been confined to those who have approached the Court and no general direction has been issued, thus, direction of the same nature may be issued in the case of the petitioner to put him at par with other four persons who had earlier came to this Court .;