Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Karnataka was seized of a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by twelve candidates who had been placed on a reserve list for the post of Office Assistant (Multipurpose) in three Regional Rural Banks (RRBs) in Karnataka. The RRBs had requisitioned the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) to conduct a recruitment process. The petitioners, finding themselves eligible, applied and were placed on a reserve list of 25% of vacancies under each post and category. They were informed that the reserve list would expire on 31-01-2019. When no appointments were made and the RRBs instead initiated a fresh recruitment process, the petitioners approached the High Court on 29-01-2019, seeking a direction to issue appointment letters against existing vacancies. On 30-01-2019, the Court granted an interim order prohibiting the expiry of the reserve list. The respondents filed applications to vacate this interim order. During the pendency, an affidavit was filed revealing the number of unfilled vacancies: 344 in Kaveri Grameena Bank and Pragathi Krishna Grameena Bank combined, and 106 in Karnataka Vikash Grameena Bank. The petitioners argued that non-operation of the reserve list while vacancies existed violated their legitimate expectation and amounted to an illegality. The respondents contended that the writ petition was barred by res judicata because the petitioners and similarly placed candidates had earlier filed a writ petition under Article 32 before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 01-07-2019 with the order: 'Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. We see no reason to entertain this petition. This writ petition is dismissed.' They further argued that there is no indefeasible right to appointment from a reserve list and that the decision to fill vacancies lies within the employer’s discretion. The High Court framed three issues: (1) maintainability of the writ petition in light of the Supreme Court’s dismissal; (2) whether the petitioners have a right to be considered for appointment; and (3) whether the Bank’s action was illegal. The Court began its analysis by examining the principle of res judicata in the context of Article 32 and Article 226 jurisdictions. It noted that the Supreme Court dismissed the Article 32 petition without adjudicating rights, finding no fundamental right infringed. Relying on the Constitution Bench decision in Daryao v. State of U.P., the Court observed that a dismissal in limine without a speaking order does not determine the rights of parties and thus may not operate as res judicata. The judgment, however, was reserved on 23-02-2021 and pronounced on 16-04-2021, but the available text ends mid-analysis, leaving the final decision on all three points unknown. The interim order against expiry of the reserve list remained in operation.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Res Judicata - Applicability of Dismissal in Limine - Constitution of India, Articles 32 and 226 - The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioners' earlier writ petition under Article 32 without adjudication, finding no infringement of fundamental rights; the Court considered whether such dismissal bars a subsequent writ petition under Article 226 on the same facts, examining the principles laid down in Daryao v. State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 1457, which held that a dismissal without a speaking order does not constitute res judicata as it does not determine rights. (Paras 9-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether dismissal of writ petition under Article 32 by Supreme Court in limine operates as res judicata barring a subsequent writ petition under Article 226 on the same cause of action; whether petitioners have a right to appointment from reserve list; whether the bank's action in not operating the reserve list is illegal.
Law Points
- dismissal of writ petition under Article 32 in limine does not constitute res judicata
- Article 32 remedy available only upon infringement of fundamental rights
- dismissal without adjudication does not determine rights
Case Details
2021 LawText (KAR) (04) 2
WRIT PETITION No.5317 OF 2019 (S – RES)
Ms. Sunieta Ojha for Sri Prem Prasad Shetty (Petitioners), Sri Arun K.S. (R1), Sri T.P. Muthanna (R3 & R4), Sri A. Ravishankar (R5), R2 served and unrepresented
Akash Sethi, Jaypravas Mishra, Manish Jangir, Sajan Punyani, Ravi Kumar, Kundan Kumar, Kaushik Kunal, Lokanath Choudhury, Sanwar Mal Jat, Suman Saurabh Sharma, Dipu Pandey, Vijender Kumar
Union of India, Karnataka Vikash Grameena Bank, Kaveri Grameena Bank, Pragathi Krishna Grameena Bank, Institute of Banking Personnel Selection
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing Regional Rural Banks to issue appointment letters to petitioners from a reserve list prepared by IBPS.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought a direction to respondents 2 to 4 (RRBs) to issue appointment letters for the posts for which they applied and which were kept in reserve against available vacancies.
Filing Reason
Petitioners were placed on a reserve list for the post of Office Assistant (Multipurpose) but were not issued appointment letters despite the existence of unfilled vacancies; the reserve list was set to expire on 31-01-2019, and the RRBs initiated a fresh recruitment process without operating the reserve list.
Previous Decisions
The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 32 filed by the petitioners and others on 01-07-2019 with the order: 'Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. We see no reason to entertain this petition. This writ petition is dismissed.' The High Court on 30-01-2019 passed an interim order directing that the reserve list would not expire on 31-01-2019.
Issues
Whether the writ petition filed under Article 226 is maintainable given that the petitions filed under Article 32 on the same set of facts and prayer were dismissed in limine by the Supreme Court?
Whether the petitioners have a right to be considered for appointment from the reserve list?
Whether the action of the Bank in not operating the reserve list and initiating fresh recruitment was illegal?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that 25% of vacancies were placed in the reserve list, which was not operated, and instead the RRBs initiated a fresh recruitment; total unfilled vacancies were 344 in Kaveri and Pragathi Krishna Grameena Banks and 106 in Karnataka Vikash Grameena Bank; legitimate expectation demanded their appointment.
Respondents contended that the writ petition was barred by res judicata due to the dismissal of the earlier Article 32 petition by the Supreme Court; petitioners had no indefeasible right to appointment from a reserve list; and it was within the employer's discretion to decide how many vacancies to fill.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. We see no reason to entertain this petition. This writ petition is dismissed.
The Apex Court found no reason to entertain the petition. Article 32 of the Constitution as extracted hereinabove is exercisable only on an infringement of a fundamental right which the Apex Court found in the case on hand that there is no fundamental right of the petitioners infringed that too without determining or adjudicating the matter.
A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Daryao & others Vs. State of U.P. & others reported in AIR 1961 SC 1457, analyzing the principle whether Article 226 of the Constitution would be a bar to maintain a petition under Article 32 or once a petition is filed under Article 32 of the Constitution would be a bar for the High Courts to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Apex Court has held as follows: ...
Procedural History
Petitioners filed the writ petition on 29-01-2019. On 30-01-2019, the Court directed that the reserve list would not expire on 31-01-2019. The respondent RRBs filed applications to vacate the interim order, which were directed to be heard with the main petition. The Court directed the Bank to file an affidavit regarding vacancies. Meanwhile, the petitioners and others had filed a writ petition under Article 32 before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 01-07-2019. The writ petition was heard and reserved for orders on 23-02-2021, and the order was pronounced on 16-04-2021.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227, 32
