Dismissed

Bal Krishan Meena v. Institute of Bank

Rajasthan HC8 Jan 2014CW/5291/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a successful selection candidate, sought appointment in a bank after missing the deadline to submit bank preference. The court dismissed the writ petition, holding the selection agency lacked power to direct appointment post-deadline and forbade accommodating the defaulting candidate.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition and stay application dismissed; no appointment directed.

Bal Krishan Meena Vs Institute of Bank — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶3

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶4

ORDER

¶5

SB Civil Writ Petition No.5291/2013 Bal Krishan Meena versus Institute of Banking Personnel Selection

¶6

8.1.2014

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI

¶8

Mr Ashok Bansal - for petitioner(s) Mr SK Singhal – for respondent - IBPS

¶9

BY THE COURT:

¶10

The petitioner applied and appeared for selection to the post of Probationary Officer/ Management Trainee. The petitioner remained successful thus was asked to submit preference of the bank by 28.2.2013. It was made clear that in case of default to submit preference of the bank, the candidature will stand forfeited. The preference of the bank was sought in view of the fact that selection was conducted not for one or two bank but for many banks thus preference was required to be given by the candidate. The respondent – Institute of Banking Personnel Selection is only a selection agency.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even after 28.2.2013, appointments were given by various banks on

¶12

¶13

lower meritorious candidates. The petitioner approached the respondent on 2.3.2013 itself i.e. one day after last date for submission of preference. In view of above, petitioner could have been accommodated for submission of preference of the bank and, if, at all, no preference was given by the petitioner, he should have been given appointment in any of the bank at the choice of the respondent itself. The denial of appointment to a meritorious candidate is thus illegal and improper on the part of the respondent.

¶14

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that respondent is only a selection agency for various banks thus appointment order is not issued by them but is given by the bank concerned. The bank is allotted by the respondent as per preference(s) of the candidate, subject to his merit. The preference of the bank is required or is mandatory to recommend names of the candidates immediately after completion of the selection. It is as per choice of the candidate thus it was made clear that if a candidate remains successful but failed to submit his preference for the bank, his candidature will stand forfeited. The petitioner failed to submit preference of the bank by due date i.e. 28.2.2013 thus other candidates were accommodated. Now, the process of selection is over and appointments have

¶15

¶16

already been given thus no post exist for the petitioner to accommodate him.

¶17

I have considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶18

It is not in dispute that petitioner appeared for the selection for the post of Probationary Officer/ Management Trainee for the banks and remained successful. The selection was conducted not for one or two banks but for 19 banks thus a candidate was required to give his preference of the bank so that in order of preference, name may be sent to the concerned bank for appointment. The directions were clear to say that a candidate who is successful in interview will forfeit his/ her candidature/ chance for appointment if he/she does not exercise option of preference. The prescribed process was mentioned in the Notification dated 5.2.2013 notifying schedule of subsequent activities (AnnexureR/2). The petitioner is one who had defaulted in submission of preference. The respondent processed the matter of appointment as per the preference given by the candidates and appointments have already been given, as stated by learned counsel for the respondent. Since the respondent is only a selection agency and not appointing authority, a direction for appointment of the

¶19

¶20

petitioner by accepting his preference for any of the banks cannot be given now.

¶21

If the petitioner is now accommodated despite his default to submit preference, it will open Pandora box because there may be several similar situated candidates. In that case, the candidates already appointed in pursuance to their preference have to make room for the petitioner, if they are lower in merit because appointment cannot be directed in excess to the post advertised. The default to submit preference for the bank is thus fatal. The respondent agency has arranged the selection in a manner which should not only be speedy but make the things clear as to how many candidates opted for particular bank so as to send the list followed by appointment orders by the bank. The respondent has now issued a fresh advertisement. This is more so when all the previous posts have already been filled, as stated by learned counsel for respondent.

¶22

In view of above, writ petition so as the stay application are dismissed.

(MN BHANDARI), J.

bnsharma

All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.

¶27

(BN Sharma) PS-cum-JW

Bal Krishan Meena v. Institute of Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bal Krishan Meena v. Institute of Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virendra Singh Krishnia and Anr. Vs R C S a T and Ors.

Raghuveer Singh Sahiwala Vs R S R T C and Anr.

Gahdsi Ram Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Ishwari Janjani Vs J v v N L Jaipur

Sardar Singh Vs Chairman Hindustan Coppser Lim

Shambhu Dayal Yogi Vs State Irrigation Departors