Indian Bank & Anr. Vs. R. Jayashree & Ors.
EmailBanking services – Recruitment – Appellant bank selecting candi-dates for appointment to clerical category – Respondent, one of those selected but included in waiting list – One of the candidates selected and appointed, not accepting the appointment and therefore one post lying vacant – In the meantime, Reserve Bank issuing letter to appellant bank prohibiting further ap-pointment due to financial position – Consequently, appellant bank not making further appointments – Respondent claiming en-titlement to be appointed against the existing vacancy, filing writ – High Court allowing the writ, holding it was not a case of fresh vacancy to which the ban applied. Held, as long as a vacancy arises which has not been filled up, any appointment thereto will be a fresh appointment. When a selected candidate does not join and consequently a vacancy arises and that vacancy is filled, it will be a fresh appointment. Therefore, in view of the ban imposed by the Reserve Bank, the appellant was justified in not appointing the respondent. High Court’s order therefore, set aside.
1. The Banking Service Recruitment Board invited applications by a notification dated 28th June, 1995 for the post of clerk-cum-cashier, typist-cum-clerk and stenographers from among eligible candidates in respect of vacancies likely to arise during the years 1995-96 in the public sector banks in the State of Kerala, Mahe, Union Territory of Lakshadweep.
2. The appellant-bank requested for filling up of 15 vacancies in the bank and it was specifically mentioned that inter alia it required two ex-servicemen from SC/ST/OBC category. The respond-ent no. 1 was one of those candidates who was selected but in-cluded in the waiting list prepared by the board. Out of the 15 candidates who were offered appointment in the service of the appellant-bank, one of the candidates did not accept the appoint-ment and thus that post remained vacant.
3. On 12.8.1996, the Reserve Bank of India sent a communication to the appellant-bank banning further recruitment in view of the financial position and it specifically mentioned that it would include filling up of the vacancies even in respect of drop-outs. In complying with the aforesaid direction, the appellant-bank did not make any further appointment. The first respondent thereafter, filed a writ petition and claimed that she should be appointed to the available vacancy with the appellant-bank to the post of clerk-cum-cashier.
4. The learned single judge of the High Court who dealt with the matter, took the view that the appointment had already been made but the candidate did not join the duty and thus, it was the case of non-joining duty vacancy and not a fresh vacancy to which there was a ban for further appointment and on that basis, allowed the writ petition. The division bench of the High Court, on appeal, upheld the order made by the learned single judge. Hence, this appeal.
5. We find that it is clear, that as long as vacancy arises which has not been filled up, any appointment thereto will be a fresh appointment. The contrary view of the High Court that if vacancy arises in a post as a result of a non-joining, it is not a fresh vacancy is plainly incorrect. When a selected candidate did not join the post and the post having remained vacant, appointment made to that post thereafter, will be a fresh appointment. In that view of the matter, we think the High Court failed to appre-ciate the matter in the right perspective. In the circumstances, the view taken by the appellant-bank was correct and there being a ban by the Reserve Bank for any fresh recruitment, they could not have made any appointment. Hence, we set aside the order made by the division bench and that of the learned single judge and dismiss the writ petition filed by respondent no. 1. The appeals are allowed accordingly.
