Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from recruitment irregularities in the State Bank of India and other nationalised banks in the Eastern Region of India. On April 19, 1982, the State Bank of India requisitioned 960 vacancies, while other nationalised banks pooled together and requisitioned 1713 vacancies. In 1983, the recruitment board for the State Bank of India prepared a select list of 3100 candidates, far exceeding the 960 notified vacancies. Similarly, the combined examination board for nationalised banks made a mess by selecting candidates in excess of notified vacancies, as vacancies had arisen to the extent of 6700. To clear the mess, a high-power committee was constituted by the Ministry of Finance, Banking Division, which recommended that instead of inviting fresh applications for vacancies that arose between the date of notification and the date of selection, the banks should adjust candidates from the wait list prepared for the State Bank of India into vacancies in nationalised banks. In this process, Mohammed Shahzad, appellant No.3, who stood at rank 2156 in the merit list for nationalised banks, was not appointed. He filed a writ petition in the High Court. Appellants 1 and 2 filed an application for intervention, and 27 other persons filed another writ petition. The High Court dismissed both writ petitions, leading to these appeals before the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether recruitment of candidates in excess of notified vacancies violates the constitutional guarantee under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, and whether the appellants were entitled to appointment based on their position in the select or wait list. The appellants contended that they were entitled to appointment from the wait list prepared by the recruitment boards. The Ministry of Finance, upon a direction from the Supreme Court dated May 19, 1995, responded that it had only controlling power over nationalised banks and no power to recruit employees; the Banking Service Recruitment Board was the proper forum for selection. The Court held that Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution enshrines a fundamental right to every citizen to claim consideration for appointment to a post under the State. Vacant posts arising or expected should be notified inviting applications from all eligible candidates to be considered on merit. The recruitment of candidates in excess of notified vacancies is a denial and deprivation of that constitutional right. The procedure adopted by the recruitment boards was unconstitutional. However, since appointments had already been made and none was impleaded, the Court declined to interfere with those appointments adversely. The Court directed that in future, respective boards must notify existing and expected vacancies, advertise, and recruit strictly according to notified vacancies, not to any vacancies that may arise during the selection process. As regards appellant No.3, the Court found that his rank of 2156 was far in excess of the notified vacancies, and granting relief would commit the same mistake. Others were not entitled as they did not file writ petitions in the High Court. Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Equality in Public Employment - Articles 14 and 16(1) of Constitution of India - Vacancies must be notified to all eligible candidates before recruitment - Recruitment of candidates in excess of notified vacancies is a denial and deprivation of the constitutional right to equal opportunity in public employment - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 14 and 16(1) - The recruitment boards prepared select lists exceeding notified vacancies, leading to appointments beyond advertised posts. The Court held that vacant posts arising or expected should be notified inviting applications from all eligible candidates, and selecting candidates in excess of notified vacancies violates Articles 14 and 16(1). However, appointments already made were not disturbed because none was impleaded and third-party rights had accrued. Held that the procedure adopted was unconstitutional but existing appointments protected. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Service Law - Recruitment Process - State Bank of India and Nationalised Banks - Select list/Wait list cannot be used to fill future vacancies - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 14 and 16(1) - A high-power committee had recommended adjustment of wait list candidates in nationalised banks for vacancies that arose after initial notification. The Court held that contrary to the constitutional mandate, recruitment boards had made selections in excess of notified vacancies, and directed that hereafter boards must notify existing and expected vacancies, advertise, and strictly recruit according to the notified vacancies, not to any vacancies arising during the selection process. Held that such practice is unconstitutional prospectively. (Paras Not mentioned) C) Writ Jurisdiction - Relief to Individual Candidate - Rank 2156 in select list - No direction to appoint candidate whose rank far exceeds notified vacancies - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 14 and 16(1) - Appellant No.3 ranked 2156 in merit list for nationalised banks, far in excess of notified vacancies. The Court deprecated the practice of appointing in excess of notified vacancies but refused to commit the same mistake by directing consideration of his case. Other appellants did not file writ petitions in High Court and were not entitled. Held that no relief could be granted; appeals dismissed. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether recruitment of candidates in excess of notified vacancies is unconstitutional and whether appellants are entitled to relief
Final Decision
Appeals dismissed; no costs. The Court deprecated the practice of recruitment in excess of notified vacancies and directed that future vacancies must be notified and recruitment strictly confined to notified vacancies, but no relief granted to appellants.
Law Points
- Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of Constitution of India enshrine fundamental right to claim consideration for appointment to a post under the State
- vacant posts arising or expected should be notified inviting applications from all eligible candidates
- recruitment of candidates in excess of notified vacancies is a denial and deprivation of constitutional right under Article 14 read with Article 16(1)
- recruitment boards must notify existing and expected vacancies and strictly adhere to notified vacancies not vacancies that may arise during selection process
