Dismissed

Rahul Jain v. Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank

Rajasthan HC17 Dec 2021CW/5934/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a writ petition seeking allotment of seats against recalled and re-reported vacancies of Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank. The Court held that IBPS, the recruiting agency, had already finalized the allotment and could not reconsider candidatures based on vacancies reported post-provisional allotment, exercising its inherent powers.

What did the court decide?

The present petition and all stay applications are dismissed; petitioners are to be governed by their own merits in the concluded selection process.

Rahul Jain Vs Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5934/2021

¶4

Rahul Jain S/o Ashok Kumar Jain, Aged About 25 Years, 4, Akshardham Colony, New Housing Board, Banswara, Rajasthan

¶5

Yogendra Singh Khangaroot S/o Bhanwar Singh Khangaroot, Aged About 25 Years, Ward No.13, Gulabpura, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

¶6

Mahendra Kumar Prajapat S/o Gautam Lal Prajapat, Aged About 30 Years, Near Bsnl Office, Fatehnagar, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶7

Ashish Jatolia S/o Mahendra Jatolia, Aged About 25 Years, H.no.494/31 Shanti Nagar, Malusar Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

¶8

Sushil Gupta S/o Jitendra Pal, Aged About 28 Years, 3 A Block, Ward No.22, Near Bansal Diagnostic Centre, Raisinghnagar, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

¶9

Ankit Bhardwaj S/o Gopal Lal Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, 110 Shyam Nagar, Choumu, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶10

Ramesh Kumar Saharan S/o Ramswaroop Saharan, Aged About 26 Years, Ward 16 Rangeri Road, Sahawa, Taranagar, Churu, Rajasthan

¶11

Mamta Yadav D/o Prem Chand Yadav, Aged About 25 Years, Ward No.12, B Sector, Kashipuram Colony, Dabla Road, Kotputli, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶12

Kavita Baroliya D/o Pukhraj Baroliya, Aged About 27 Years, A-902, Chandravardai Nagar, Ajmer Rajasthan.

¶13

Pooja Varshney D/o Rakesh Varshney, Aged About 31 Years, 1206, Mahaveer Nagar 2Nd Kota, Rajasthan.

¶14

Vikas Kumar S/o Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 31 Years, Vpo Rashidpura, Via Khori Bari, Tehsil Dhod, Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶15

Sandeep Kumawat S/o Mahaveer Prasad Kumawat, Aged About 28 Years, Ward 15, Aagwari Road, Sirohi, Neemka Thana, Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶16

Bharatveer Chitara S/o Dhanraj Chitara, Aged About 29 Years, 454/18 Nala Bazar, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

¶17

Himmat Singh Shakhawat S/o Late Bhanwar Singh

¶18

(2 of 10)

¶19

[CW-5934/2021]

¶20

Shakhawat, Aged About 25 Years, 19, Basant Vihar Colony, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶21

Anubhav Soni S/o Ganesh Prasad Soni, Aged About 27 Years, Ward-15, Subhash Colony, Nainwa, Bundi, Rajasthan.

¶22

Prakash Meena S/o Rameshwar Prasad Meena, Aged About 26 Years, 120, Prem Nagar, Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶23

Nitish Mishra S/o Gajanand Mishra, Aged About 27 Years, 172-A, Bharat Nagar, Old Abadi, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

¶24

Vishal Jain S/o Dinesh K Jain, Aged About 25 Years, 34, Matra Kripa, Gandhi Nagar, Beawar Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan

¶25

Virendra Pal Singh Bhati S/o Nand Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 24 Years, Village Charpotiya, Post Potla Kalan Tehsil Bhadesar, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

¶26

----Petitioners

¶27

Versus

¶28

Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Head Office Presently Situated At Plot No.2343, 2Nd Floor, Aana Sagar Circular Road, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer Through Its Chairman

¶29

Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Head Office Presently Situated At Tulsi Tower, 9Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, 342003 Through Its Chairman

¶30

Institute Of Banking Personnel Selection, Ibps House, 90 Feet, D.p. Road, Near Thakur Polytechnic, Off. Western Express Highway, P.b. No.8587 Kandivali (E), Mumbai Through Its Chairman.

¶31

----Respondents

¶32

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Akhilesh Rajpurohit with Mr. MilapChopra
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Anil Bhandari. Mr. Vipul Dharnia for
		Mr. Dhanesh Saraswat.
		Mr. Bhavit Sharma with
		Mr. Hukum Singh.

¶33

(3 of 10)

¶34

[CW-5934/2021]

¶35

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶36

Order

¶37

17/12/2021

¶38

The matter comes up on second stay application.

¶39

However, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard finally.

¶40

This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following

¶41

reliefs:

¶42

“(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Respondent Banks may kindly be directed to allot to the actual reported vacancies for scale-2 GBO cadre as per merit and preference in the Respondent No.1, available at the stage of interview to the Petitioners; (ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the belated decision of the Respondent No.1 to withdraw its indent/seats in the CRP-RRB IX after completion of Interview stage shall be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside with all consequential directions;

¶43

(iii) the respondent No.3 may kindly be directed to reallot the seats to the petitioners after taking into consideration the actual earlier reported indent seats of Respondent No.1 RRBs for scale-2 GBO cadre reported till the interview stage in CRP RRB-IX;

¶44

(iv) the seat of qualified petitioners to Scale-II GBO post in respective category without considering vacancy indent of Respondent No.1 RRB in CRP RRBIX be kept reserved until final disposal of this writ and any adverse action against the petitioners by Respondents be restrained in this regards;

¶45

(v) any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the

¶46

(4 of 10) [CW-5934/2021]

¶47

facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners;

¶48

(vi) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioners.”

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners participated in the recruitment examination of various Regional Rural Banks – IX for Group ‘A’-Officers, more particularly, for Scale II Level - General Banking Officer as conducted by the respondent No.3-Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS).

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners succeeded in their examination, but in the meanwhile, the respondent No.1-Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank withdrew its 126 vacancies from the recruitment process in question; but the respondent No.1 again withdrew its withdrawal letter, that has been addressed to the IBPS, for allotting candidates for all cadres against the aforementioned 126 vacancies.

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioners however, submits that the IBPS continued with the recruitment in question, as per the result declared on 03.02.2021.

¶52

Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the cause of action to the present petitioners has arisen on count of the fact that the petitioners, despite having secured very good marks and almost near to maximum merit marks, have been deprived of their preferred respondent banks, and in case recruitment on those 126 vacancies of respondent No.1 is included, the petitioners are likely to get better placements.

¶53

Learned counsel for the petitioners have thereafter drawn the attention of this Court towards the order dated 24.05.2021

¶54

(5 of 10)

¶55

[CW-5934/2021]

¶56

passed by this Hon’ble Court in the present petition, which reads as under:-

¶57

“1. Mr. Rajpurohit, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to communication gap between respondent No. 1 and 3, 126 posts of Scale II, General Banking Officer though advertised could not be filled in at first instance.

¶58

2. According to him these posts have now been permitted to be filled in by the respondent No.1.

¶59

3. The petitioners’ concern in the present writ petition is that though the petitioners stood higher in merit list, they have been given appointment/posting in distant Regional Rural Banks and also outside the State, which were not preferable to them, however these 126 posts which have been permitted to be filled in later, are being offered by the respondent No.3 to persons next in merit. He argues that despite standing higher in merit petitioners would be deprived of posting places of their choice whereas persons securing lesser merit than them would be given postings which the petitioners would have opted.

¶60

4. In view of the present factual backdrop, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioners and all concerned candidates to file a representation before the respondent No.1 and 3, so that their grievance can be appropriately considered/redressed.

¶61

5. In case the representation is filed within a period of one week from today, respondents No.1 and 3 shall take appropriate decision on such representation within a period of two weeks of receipt thereof.

¶62

6. The petitioners’ representation if not appropriately considered by the respondents, they may join at the postings offered to them, which shall not prejudice their rights of claiming posting flowing from the present writ petition.

¶63

(6 of 10)

¶64

[CW-5934/2021]

¶65

7. Issue notice to respondent No. 2 and 3, returnable on 05.07.2021.

¶66

8. List this case on 05.07.2021.

¶67

9. Notices and representation are permitted to be filed electronically at the official email addresses of respondents.”

¶68

As per learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners have accordingly joined their postings, but are protected by the aforequoted order.

¶69

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that for no fault of theirs, the petitioners are being prejudiced as the 126 vacancies of the respondent No.1 are not being filled and their representations have also been rejected.

¶70

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 however, submits that their stand has been reproduced in the second stay petition, which reads as under:

¶71

“That after receipt of NABARD’s instruction via its letter dated 14.01.2021, we again requested our Sponsor Bank to re-consider its direction to withdraw vacancies from CRP-RRB-IX via our letter of even date (Writ Annexure R1/6). After declaration of combined results of Officer Scale-II and III cadres on 03.02.2021, Sponsor Bank via its letter dated 05.02.2021 (Writ Annexure R1/7) permitted us to continue current recruitment process for financial year 2020-21. It in these above mentioned compelling circumstances, that we therefore immediately wrote IBPS on same date (Writ Annexure R1/8) for cancelling our withdrawal letter and re-consider our post-wise vacancies for all cadres. But IBPS via its reply mail of even date expressed its inability to consider our indent for Officer Scale II & III cadres.

¶72

(7 of 10)

¶73

[CW-5934/2021]

¶74

Learned counsel thus submits that the IBPS should have included their 126 vacancies in the recruitment in question.

¶75

Learned counsel for the respondent No.3, on the other hand, submits that their stand has also been reproduced in the second stay petition, which reads as under:-

¶76

“ Further, in its para no.4(vii), the respondent No.1 Regional Rural Bank also pointed out regarding the inherent powers of the respondent No.3 institute i.e., IBPS as mentioned in the advertisement issued by IBPS providing Common Recruitment Process for Recruitment of Officers (Scale I, II & III) and Office Assistant Multipurpose in Regional Rural Banks under clause K Provisional Allotment that:

¶77

However, IBPS reserves the right to cancel, re-allot organization-wise allocation/change the process depending upon exigencies or otherwise.”

¶78

Learned counsel further submits that their stand is also clear from Annexure-12 of the second stay petition dated 14.06.2021, relevant portion of which reads as under:-

¶79

“6. Vide para 11 of your representation, you have stated that the Respondent No.1 BRKGB vide their letter dated 05.02.2021 requested to Respondent No.3 (IBPS) to provisionally allot the selected candidates as per their request made vide letter dated 28.10.2020. The said request of BRKGB for provisional allotment for the post of Officers Scale II was not considered as they had reported the vacancies for the said post on 05.02.2021 after completion of provisional allotment on 03.02.2021. Moreover, once the provisional allotment is made, the same is final and binding upon the candidates in terms of Clause K (para 10) of the said advertisement. This is a pre-condition notified in

¶80

(8 of 10) [CW-5934/2021]

¶81

the said advertisement and the same was within your knowledge while you applied for the said post.

¶82

8. Vide Para 13 and 14 of your representation, you have requested for reconsideration of your candidature by accepting 126 vacancies of BRKGB for the post of Officers Scale II (GBO) as per your merit cum preference. In this connection, it may please be noted that vacancies reported by BRKGB for the said post after the date provisional allotment could not be considered. The provisional allotment has already been made in accordance with the laid down provisions of the said advertisement, hence, there is no injustice of any kind caused to you.”

¶83

Learned counsel for the respondent No.3-IBPS thus, categorically submits that the said 126 vacancies were withdrawn by the respondent No.1 itself before being reiterated and a request from them for provisional allotment of the posts of Officer Scale II was not considered as they had reiterated the vacancies for the post in question on 05.02.2021, after completion of the provisional allotment on 03.02.2021. Learned counsel also categorically stated that they would not include the petitioners against the said 126 vacancies in the recruitment, as the recruitment process from their side has already been finalized.

¶84

In response to the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently reiterates that the petitioners are protected by the aforementioned order dated 24.05.2021, and though they have joined at their respective place of posting, but the inclusion of 126 vacancies of the respondent No.1 in the selection process in

¶85

(9 of 10)

¶86

[CW-5934/2021]

¶87

question has to be lawfully done and the petitioners have to be rightly accommodated at their respective places, as per their own merits.

¶88

After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that the respondent No.3-IBPS was conducting the selection process on behalf of the banks in question, and the 126 seats belonging to respondent No.1 were sought to be withdrawn from the recruitment by respondent No.1 itself, however, a letter for reiterating the said vacancies was made on 05.02.2021. The selection process had already culminated into finality on 03.02.2021.

¶89

A categorical stand has been taken by the respondent No.3-IBPS that now the aforementioned 126 vacancies cannot be included in the recruitment process in question as the recruitment process from their side had already culminated into completion of the exercise and allotment of vacancies on 03.02.2021.

¶90

Once the respondent-IBPS the recruiting agency itself is stating that 126 vacancies in question cannot be included in the recruitment process in question, then the complete cause of action of the petitioners fails. Moreover, the petitioners, who have joined their respective posting without prejudice to the selection process in question, they shall be governed by their own merits in accordance with the selection process, culminating into finality on 03.02.2021.

¶91

(10 of 10)

¶92

[CW-5934/2021]

¶93

The stand of the respondent-IBPS of not making any reconsideration of the candidature of the persons by accepting 126 vacancies in question is their own decision and in accordance with para 4(ii) (referred in the aforequoted stand of the respondents), wherein the inherent powers of IBPS are mentioned in the advertisement issued by it providing Common Recruitment Process for recruitment of Officers (Scale I, II & III) and Office Assistant Multipurpose in Regional Rural Banks under clause K Provisional Allotment that, “ However IBPS reserves the right to cancel, re-allot organization-wise allocation/change the process depending upon exigencies or otherwise ”, and thus, such decision taken by the IBPS cannot be gone into by this Court, that too for no reason, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶94

In view of the above, no case for making any interference is made out.

¶95

Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All stay applications and other pending applications also stand dismissed.

¶96

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

¶97

56-SKant/-

Rahul Jain v. Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Jain v. Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Veer Teja Associates Vs State and Ors.

Dwarka Das Lakhotia Vs Shri Ram Lime Products Pvt. Ltd.

Smt.Amriti Devi and Anr. Vs State and Ors.

Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd., Vs the Collector (Stamps)

Ranjeet Singh Deora Vs Union of India

State of Rajasthan Vs Bhupesh Chandra Pareek