Allowed

Institute of Banking Personnel Selection v. Akash Sethi

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2025WA/647/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeals by IBPS and regional rural banks against a direction to appoint candidates from an expired CRP RRB-VI reserve list. The Division Bench held the reserve list expired on fresh provisional allotment under CRP RRB-VII on 01.01.2019, before the petition was filed, and dismissed the writ petitions.

What did the court decide?

Single Judge's order dated 16.04.2021 set aside; W.P.No.5317/2019 dismissed; no costs.

Institute of Banking Personnel Selection Vs Akash… — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO. 647 OF 2021 (S-RES) C/W WRIT APPEAL NO. 735 OF 2021 (S-RES)

¶8

W.A.NO.647 OF 2021:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION REP. BY DIRECTOR, IBPS IBPS HOUSE 90 FEET, D.P. ROAD NEAR THAKUR POLYTECHNIC OFF. WESTERN EXPRESS HIGH WAY P.B. No.8587, KANDIVAL (E) MUMBAI-400 101 REP. BY THEIR AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MANOJ K. BISWAL

¶11

...APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. A. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

1 . AKASH SETHI AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS S/O ASHOK SETHI RESIDENT OF 6-G-24 JAWAHAR NAGAR SHRI GANGA NAGAR RAJASTHAN-335 001

¶15

¶16

¶17

2 . JAYPRAVAS MISHRA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS S/O HEMANTA KUMAR MISHRA R/O. BRAHAMANBHUIN PO-KALARABANK DIST-CUTTACK ODISHA-754 132

¶18

3 . MANISH JANGIR AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS S/O SARDAR SINGH R/O. WARD No.2 PO-MAKRO VILL. SINGHANA DIST. JHUNJHUNU RAJASHTHAN-333 504

¶19

4 . SAJAN PUNYANI

¶20

AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS S/O HARBANSHLALA PUNYANI R/O. INDIRA COLONY GALI No.9 WARD No.42 DIST. SRIGANGANAGAR RAJASTHAN-335 004

¶21

5 . RAVI KUMAR

¶22

AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS S/O BALDEV PRAKASH R/O. WARD No.4 PO-BOLANWALI, SANGARIA DIST. HANUMANGARH RAJASTHAN-335 063

¶23

6 . KUNDAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O BALMIKI PARASAD SINGH R/O. VILL. JHITKAHI PO-PHULKAN, PS SHYAMPUR BHATAN, DIST. SHEOHAR BIHAR -843 329

¶24

7 . KAUSHIK KUNAL AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

¶25

¶26

¶27

S/O RAN VIJAY PANDEY R/O. PANDEY KOTHI YARPUR, GARDANIBAGH ROAD No.1 PATNA, BIHAR-800 001

¶28

8 . LOKANATH CHOUDHURY AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS S/O AWEDHESH KUMAR SHARMA R/O. PLOT No.1859 MAHATAB ROAD ANANT NAGAR, OLD TOWN BHUBHNESHWAR DIST. KHURDA ODHISA-571 002

¶29

9 . SANWAR MAL JAT AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS S/O MADAN LAL R/O. BAJROLI MEERAN, SIKAR RAJASTHAN-332 312

¶30

10 . SUMAN SAURABH SHARMA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS S/O AWADESH KUMAR SHARMA R/O. KANHAULI KHADI BHANDAR CHOWK GANDHINAGAR, MUZAFFARPUR BIHAR-842 002

¶31

11 . DIPU PANDEY S/O ASHUTOSH PANDEY AGED ABOUT 29 EYARS R/O. GABHIRAR PS-RAGHUNATHPUR DIST.SIWAN BIHAR-841 509

¶32

12 . VIJENDER KUMAR S/O VINOD KUMAR AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT WARD No.7, PO-NUKERA

¶33

¶34

¶35

TEHSIL SANGARIA DIST. HANUMANGARH RAJASHTHAN-335 063

¶36

13 . UNION OF INDIA REP. BY DEPT. OF FINANCIAL SERVICE MINISTRY OF FINANCE 3^RD FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI-110 001

¶37

14 . KARNATAKA VIKASH GRAMEENA BANK REP. BY CHAIRMAN HEAD OFFICE, P.B.No.111 BELGAUM ROAD DHARWAD-580 008 15 . KAVERI GRAMEENA BANK REP. BY CHAIRMAN CA-20 VIJAYANAGAR 2^ND STAGE MYSURU-570 017 16 . PRAGATHI KRISHNA GRAMEEN BANK REP. BY CHAIRMAN POST BOX No.55, No.32 SANGANKAL ROAD GANDHINAGAR BALLARI-583 103

¶38

…RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI. HARSHA P.B., ADVOCATE FOR R13; SRI. BHARATH K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R7; SMT. SUNIETA OJHA, SRI. SIDDHARTH SHANDILYA & SRI. TALISH RAY, ADVOCATES FOR R6, R7, R10 & R11; SRI. MOHAMMED MANNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R6, R7 & R10; SRI. T.P. MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R14 TO R16; R2, R4, R5, R8, R9 & R12 ARE SERVED; R5, R8, R9 & R12 - SERVED THROUGH E-MAIL V.C.O. DATED 17.09.2024)

¶40

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO (a) CALL FOR RECORDS IN WP

¶41

¶42

¶43

No.5317/2019 ON THE FIL OF THIS COURT AND (b) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.04.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP No.5317/2019 AND ETC.

¶44

W.A.No.735 OF 2021: BETWEEN:

¶45

1 . KAVERI GRAMEENA BANK REP. BY CHAIRMAN CA-20, VIJAYANAGAR II STAGE MYSURU-570 017

¶46

2 . PRAGATHI KRISHNA GRAMEEN BANK REP. BY CHAIRMAN POST BOX No.55 No.32, SANGANKAL ROAD GANDHINAGAR BALLARI-583 103

¶47

(ON AMALGAMATION OF APPELLANT Nos.1 AND 2 VIDE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 22.02.2019 KARANATAKA GRAMINA BANK CAME INTO EXISTENCE W.E.F. 01-04-2019)

¶48

3 . KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEENA BANK REP. BY CHAIRMAN HEAD OFFICE PB No.111 BELGAUM ROAD DHARWAD-580 008

¶49

...APPELLANTS

¶50

(BY SRI. T.P. MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE)

¶51

AND:

¶52

1 . AKASH SETHI S/O ASHOK SETHI AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/O. 6-G-24, JAWAHAR NAGAR SHRI GANGA NAGAR RAJASTHAN-335 001

¶53

¶54

¶55

2 . JAYPRAVAS MISHRA

¶56

S/O HEMANTA KUMAR MISHRA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O. BRAHAMANBHUIN PO-KALARA BANK, DIST-CUTTACK ODDISSA-754 132

¶57

3 . MANISH JANGIR S/O SARDAR SINGH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/O. WARD No.2, PO-MAKRO VILL. SINGHANA DIST.JHUNJHUNU RAJASHTHAN-333 504

¶58

4 . SAJAN PUNYANI

¶59

S/O HARBANSHLALA PUNYANI AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/O. INDIRA COLONY, GALI No.9 WARD No.42 DIST SRIGANGANAGAR RAJASTHAN-335 004

¶60

5 . RAVI KUAMR S/O BALDEV PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/O. WARD No.4, PO-BOLANWALI SANGARIA, DSIT-HANUMNGARH RAJASTHAN-335 063

¶61

6 . KUNDAN KUMAR S/O BALMIKI PRASAD SINGH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O. VILL- JHITKAHI, PO-PHULKAN PS SHYAMAPUR, BHATAN DIST SHEOHAR, BIHAR-843 329

¶62

7 . KAUSHIK KUNAL S/O RAN VIJAY PANDEY AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/O. PANDEY KOTHI, YARPUR GARDANIBAGH, ROAD No.1 PATNA, BIHAR-800 001

¶63

¶64

¶65

8 . LOKANATH CHOUDHURY S/O AWEDHESH KUMAR SHARMA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/O. PLOT No.1859, MAHATAB ROAD ANANT NAGAR, OLD TOWN BHUBHNESHWAR, DIST-KHUDRA ODHISA-751 002

¶66

9 . SANWAR MAL JAT

¶67

S/O MADAN LAL AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/O. BAJROLI, MEERAN SIKAR, RAJASTHAN-332 312

¶68

10 . SUMAN SAURABH SHARMA S/O AWADESH KUMAR SHARMA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O. KANHAULI KHADI BHANDAR CHOWK GANDHINAGAR, MUZAFFARPUR BIHAR-842 002

¶69

11 . DIPU PANDEY S/O ASHUTHOSH PANDEY AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/O. GABHIRAR PS-RAGHUNATHPUR DIST-SIWAN BIHAR-841 509

¶70

12 . VIJENDER KUMAR S/O VINOD KUMAR AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/O. WARD No.7, PO-NUKERA TEHSIL SANGARIA DIST-HANUMANGARH RAJASTHAN-335 063

¶71

13 . UNION OF INDIA REP. BY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICE

¶72

¶73

¶74

MINISTRY OF FINANCE 3^RD FLOOR JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING SANSAD MARG NEW DELHI-110 001

¶75

14 . INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION REP. BY DIRECTOR, IBPS IBPS HOUSE, 90 FEET D.P. ROAD, NEAR THAKUR POLYTECHNIC OFF. WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY P.B. No.8587, KANDIVALI (E) MUMBAI-400 101

¶76

…RESPONDENTS

¶77

(BY SMT. PRATHIBA R., CGC FOR R13; SRI. BHARATH KRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R7; SRI. RAVI SHANKAR A., ADVOCATE FOR R14; SMT. SUNIETA OJHA, SRI. SIDDHARTH SHANDILYA & SRI. TALISH RAY, ADVOCATES FOR R6, R7, R10 & R11; SRI. MOHAMMED MANNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R6, R7 & R10; R2, R4, R8 & R9 ARE SERVED; R3, R5 & R12 - SERVICE OF NOTICE IS HELD SUFFICIENT V.C.O. DATED 21.10.2024)

¶78

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO (a) CALL FOR RECORDS IN WRIT PETITION Nos.5317-5328/2019 (S-RES) ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND (b) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.04.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION Nos.5317-5328/2019 (S-RES) AND ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND ETC.

¶79

THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 13.02.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶80

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶85

Both these writ appeals arise from the common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 16.04.2021 in Writ Petition No.5317/2019 (S-RES).

¶86

We have heard the learned counsel appearing in

¶87

these matters on all sides.

¶88

Writ Appeal No.647/2021 is filed by the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection ('the IBPS' for short), which was the fifth respondent in the Writ Petition, being aggrieved by the directions of the learned Single Judge to fill up the vacancies from the reserve list. Writ Appeal No.735/2021 is filed by the Kaveri Grameena Bank, Pragathi Krishna Grameena Bank and the Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank, which were respondents No.3, 4 and 2, respectively in the Writ Petition. The issue raised is with regard to the recruitment of Officers and Office Assistants in Regional Rural Banks. The selection in question was conducted by the IBPS on the basis of Annexure 'C' - Notification dated

¶89

¶90

¶91

22.07.2017, which provided for a common recruitment of Officers, Scale - 1, 2 and 3 and Office Assistant multipurpose. The process was called CRP RRB-VI in short. The Notification provided for filling up the vacancies in the Regional Rural Banks (RRB's). The indicative number of vacancies was also provided in the Notification. The Notification provided that on completion of the interview process/main examination depending on the vacancies to be filled in as per the business needs of the RRBs and as reported to the IBPS, the candidates short listed will be allotted to one of the RRBs based on merit-cum-preference. Thereafter, orders of appointments would be issued by the RRBs.

¶92

4. It was further provided in the Notification

¶93

specifically as follows:-

¶94

"A reserve list to the extent of vacancies as per extant provision will be drawn in each category subject to exigencies and availability of candidates This does not guarantee provisional allotment to recruitment by the RRBs. ln the event of RRBs providing further vacancies, provisional allotment will be carried out for the candidates in the reserve list subject to vacancies being provided within one year after the date of provisional allotment. However if no vacancy is furnished by the RRBs owing to exigencies or otherwise during the validity period the candidates under the reserve list will not be

¶95

¶96

¶97

considered for provisional allotment. The reserve list will expire automatically on the day which is one year after the date of Provisional Allotment or until a fresh provisional allotment is made, whichever is earlier, with or without any notice. Candidates who are not provisionally allotted or not in the reserve list will not be considered for any further process under CRP RRBs- VI.

¶98

IBPS is not responsible in case the RRBs do not notify sufficient vacancies to exhaust the reserve list. Similarly, neither the RRBs nor IBPS is bound to notify every vacancy that may arise in any RRB during pendency of reserve list. IBPS is not responsible for the recruitment of candidates, and will only act upon the vacancies notified by the RRBs in that regard within the specified period.

¶99

The decision of IBPS in provisional allotment of RRBs shall be final and binding upon the selected candidates. However IBPS reserves the right to cancel, reallot Organisation-wise allocation/change the process depending upon exigencies or otherwise.

¶100

Provisionally allotted candidates (subject to fulfilling all required criteria) may be posted anywhere.”

¶101

(emphasis supplied)

¶102

The Writ Petitioners had approached the Court filing the Writ Petition on 29.01.2019 stating that they were included in the reserve list and that the said list remains valid till 31.01.2019. They contended that though representations had been preferred by them, the IBPS and the RRBs were making appointments from the fresh provisional list which was published pursuant to CRP RRB-VII and that the same was illegal. They therefore sought

¶103

¶104

¶105

appointment to vacant posts in the RRBs on account of their inclusion in the reserve list. The Writ Petition was admitted and an interim order was passed on 30.01.2019 directing the respondents to keep the requisite posts vacant and also validity of the panel shall not be treated as expired as on 31.01.2019.

¶106

The IBPS as well as the appellant - RRBs had filed objections before the learned Single Judge. It was the specific case of respondents No.3 and 4 that the provisional allotment list pursuant to CRP RRB-VI was prepared and communicated on 01.02.2018 and the fifth respondent - IBPS had not forwarded the list of reserve candidates, though it is contended that the list was prepared. It was submitted that no vacancies which were intended to be filled up were reported by the RRBs concerned to the IBPS. The IBPS had conducted a fresh selection as CRP RRB-VII, pursuant to a Notification dated 08.06.2018 and a fresh provisional allotment had been made on 01.01.2019. It was therefore contended that the RRBs could not be forced to operate an expired list and make appointments there from.

¶107

¶108

¶109

On the directions of the learned Single Judge, details of vacancies which were in existence was placed on record in the form of an affidavit by the General Manager of the Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank before this Court. However, there also it was specifically stated at paragraph 9 as under:-

¶110

"9. I state that the Petitioners have approached this Hon'ble Court on 29.01.2019 seeking mandamus, directing the Respondent Bank to issue appointment orders. The Hon'ble Court granted ex-parte interim order on 30.01.2019 directing the Respondents to keep the requisite posts vacant and also validity of the panel shall not be treated as expired as on 31.01.2019. As per the notification for recruitment - CRP RRBs VI (Annexure C to the Writ Petition), the reserve list would expire automatically one year from the date of provisional allotment, i.e., on 31.01.2019 or until a fresh allotment is made, whichever is earlier. The Respondent No 5 has made fresh provisional allotment of candidates on 01.01.2019. Hence, the Writ Petition does not survive for consideration."

¶111

The IBPS had also filed the Statement of Objections stating that the IBPS is not a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and no writ would lie against it. However, it was further contended that Annexure

¶112

¶113

¶114

'C' Notification specifically provided that the validity of the common recruitment process for RRB- VI will automatically expire at the close of business on the day on which one year from the date of provisional allotment would end or until fresh provisional allotment is made, whichever is earlier, it was specified that CRP for RRB-VII was held and the provisional allotment was made on 01.01.2019 and therefore, the validity of the reserve list under RRB-VI had expired on 31.12.2018. The materials in support of such contentions were also placed on record along with an additional Statement of Objections filed by the IBPS on 05.01.2021.

¶115

However, the learned Single Judge after considering the contentions advanced formulated the

¶116

following questions for consideration:-

¶117

(1) Whether the writ petition filed under

¶118

Article 226 is not maintainable on the ground that the petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India have been dismissed in limine on the same set of facts and the prayer?

¶119

¶120

¶121

(2) Whether the petitioners have a right to be considered for appointment in the light of the fact that they were placed in the reserve list? and

¶122

(3) Whether the action of the Bank depicts illegality in the selection process?"

¶123

Thereafter, the question whether the Writ

¶124

Petitioners could have filed the present Writ Petition after a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India raising the same grounds has been dismissed was considered in detail. The learned Single Judge found that despite the dismissal of a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by the Apex Court, the candidates could have agitated their contentions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, it was held that though the persons included in the select list had no indefeasible right for appointment, in view of the fact that vacancies were in existence, the reserve list ought to have been operated and the petitioners should have been appointed from the list. The Writ Petition was accordingly allowed and a writ of mandamus was issued to the respondents-RRBs to

¶125

¶126

¶127

consider the case of the petitioners who are included in the reserve list and to offer them appointments if they are found to be otherwise eligible within three months from the date of the copy of the judgment.

¶128

The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the life of the reserve list prepared was only till the fresh provisional allotment under the subsequent selection, that is, CRP RRB-VII. Since the fresh provisional allotment was effected on 01.01.2019, as admitted by the Writ Petitioners, there was no question of operating the expired reserve list after the said date. It is contended that the learned Single Judge failed to take note of the specific words "whichever is earlier" in the relevant notification and that the judgment under appeal is liable to be set aside on that short ground alone.

¶129

The Learned counsel places reliance on the following judgments:-

¶130

Subha B. Nair and Others v. State of Kerala and Others, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 210 ;

¶131

¶132

¶133

It is contended that once the validity of the list has expired, there can be no direction issued to make appointments from the said list, even if vacancies are in existence.

¶134

The learned counsel appearing for the

¶135

respondents, on the other hand, contends that the contention of the RRBs before the learned Single Judge was that no reserve list was made available to them and even if such list was prepared, because of their financial conditions, they did not intend to make appointments against the available vacancies. It is contended that this contention was

¶136

per se incorrect in view of the fact that the very same vacancies were reported to the IBPS and were filled up in the subsequent selection. It is therefore contended that the RRBs who are admittedly 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India cannot conduct the selections in violation of their own notifications. It is further contended that the very same contention with regard to the very same selection had been considered by the other High Courts and relief had been granted to identically situated petitions.

¶137

¶138

¶139

The learned counsel appearing for the

¶140

respondents placed reliance on the following judgments:-

¶141

Manoj Manu and Another v. Union of India and Others , reported in (2013) 12 SCC 171 ;

¶142

Sandeep Singh v. State of Haryana and Another , reported in (2002) 10 SCC 549 ;

¶143

Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank v. Jyoti , by Order dated 25.09.2024 passed in LPA-2279-2024 (O & M) ;

¶144

Abhishek Kumar & Others v. The Institute of Banking Personnel Selection & Another , by Order dated 06.07.2023 passed in CWP-29443-2018 (O & M) ;

¶145

Subhash Chhilar and Others v. Union of India and Another , by Order dated 21.12.2022 passed in W.P(C) 5211/2022 & CM APPL. 15475/2022 ;

¶146

Rahul Jain S/o Ashok Kumar Jain v. Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank , by Order dated 18.08.2022 passed in D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.100/2022 ;

¶147

Varun Dhiman v. State of H.P. & Others , by Order dated 20.07.2021 passed in CWP No.3366/2020 ;

¶148

Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi and Others , by Order dated 22.11.2024 passed in Civil Appeal No.13001 of 2024 ;

¶149

Food Corporation of India v. M/s. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries , reported in (1993) 1 SCC 71 ;

¶150

Sivanandan C.T. and Others v. High Court of Kerala and Others , reported in (2024) 3 SCC 799 ;

¶151

¶152

¶153

M/s. Laxmi Khandsari and Others v. State of U.P. and Others , reported in (1981) 2 SCC 600 ;

¶154

Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank v. Paras Kumar , by Order dated 07.02.2025 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).2096/2025 ;

¶155

Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank v. Paras Kumar , by Order dated 25.09.2024 passed in LPA-2326-2024 (O & M) ;

¶156

Jyoti v. Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank , by Order dated 13.10.2023 passed in CWP-18546-2021 (O & M);

¶157

Evan v. Bartlam reported in 1937 A.C. 473;

¶158

Charles Osenton & Co v. Johnston in 1942 A.C. 130;

¶159

Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi & Others in C.A.No.131001 of 2024;

¶160

T.C. Basappa v. T Nagappa reported in (1954) 1 SCC 905; and

¶161

Dwarka Nath vs. ITO reported in (1965) 57 ITR 349.

¶162

We have considered the contentions advanced. The relevant portion of Annexure 'C' - Notification pursuant to which the petitioners participated in the selection provided for drawing up of a reserve list. However, it was specifically provided that inclusion in the reserve list does not guarantee provisional allotment for recruitment. If the RRBs report vacancies to the IBPS within one year after the

¶163

¶164

¶165

date of provisional allotment, allotment will be made from the reserve list. If no vacancy is furnished during the validity of the list, no allotment shall be made.

¶166

It is pertinent to note that the validity of the reserve list was specifically provided for as under:-

¶167

The reserve list will expire automatically on the day which is one year after the date of provisional allotment or until a fresh provisional allotment is made, whichever is earlier, with or without any notice. It is further provided that the candidates included in the provisional list but are not provisionally allotted will not be considered for any further process under CRP RRB-VI.

¶168

Therefore, the question is whether the reserve list is liable to be operated once provisional allotment is made consequent to a subsequent advertisement dated 08.06.2018.

¶169

The answer would be an emphatic 'No'.

¶170

It is trite law that a person included in a select list

¶171

does not have a vested right to contend that he/she shall be

¶172

¶173

¶174

appointed against the notified posts. The right of the persons included in a select list or a reserve list is specifically subject to the provisions of the Notification which governs the selection in question. In the instant case, there is admittedly, a provision for preparation of a reserve list. However, the Notification does not disable the selecting agency from conducting fresh selections in respect of vacancies which may arise after the initial provisional allotment or even those vacancies which arise during the course of the selection. The meaning of the provisions with regard to the reserve list as found in Annexure 'C' - Notification can only be that in case no fresh selection is conducted during the life of the reserve list, then, the reserve list can be operated for a period of one year after the initial provisional allotment has occurred. However, the life of the list is one year or till a fresh provisional allotment occurs, whichever is earlier. ( emphasis supplied ). Therefore, if a fresh provisional allotment after a fresh selection notification occurs before the period of one year expires; then, the reserve list stands expired on that date. In the

¶175

¶176

¶177

instant case, a further provisional allotment was admittedly made on 01.01.2019 and on such date, the validity of the earlier reserve list expires. The petitioners in the instant case had approached this Court only after the expiry of the reserve list in which their names found a place.

¶178

All the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners are rendered in cases where the candidates included in the reserve list had approached the Courts when the subsequent advertisement was issued by the IBPS without operating the reserve list. It is after considering the fact that the validity of the Reserve List is for one year after the date of provisional allotment or until a fresh provisional allotment is made, whichever is earlier that the other High Courts and the Apex Court had ordered that the Reserve List is bound to be operated.

¶179

However, in the instant case, the subsequent advertisement was issued on 08.06.2018 and the selection continued without any challenge being raised by any of the persons included in the reserve list. The provisional

¶180

¶181

¶182

allotment pursuant to the subsequent advertisement/notification was admittedly issued on 01.01.2019 (Annexure-R9). It is only thereafter, on 29.01.2019, that is, admittedly after the validity of the reserve list had expired by issuance of the fresh provisional allotment, that the petitioner had approached this Court.

¶183

The writ petition having been filed after the validity of the reserve list had expired, the prayer as sought for could not have been granted. The respondents' right to be considered for appointment also stood expired on 01.01.2019. In the circumstances, the contention raised that the reserve list ought to have been operated by the RRBs before the subsequent advertisement was issued cannot be a ground to issue a direction as has been done by the learned Single Judge.

¶184

We are of the clear opinion that the persons, who approached the court only after the expiry of validity of the list in which they were included, cannot have any better right than persons who have admittedly participated in the

¶185

¶186

¶187

subsequent selection and obtained provisional allotment. None of the judgments relied on consider the situation as available in the instant case. We are therefore of the opinion that the appeal should succeed.

¶188