Raja Aditya M v. Central Bank of India & Anr.

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent-Bank in publishing a revised select list in respect of Recruitment of Specialist Officers (IT)-2009 without validly canceling the original select list as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to set aside the said action. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the notification issued by the respondent-Bank to the post of Specialist Officers in the area of Information Technology (IT), he had applied for the post of Information Technology Officer MMG, Scale II and appeared for the written test at Hyderabad on 23.11.2008 and he qualified the test and he was interviewed by the Respondent-Bank at Mumbai on 6.3.2009. On 10.8.2009, the respondent-Bank published the list of selected candidates in their web site in which he was declared provisionally eligible for appointment subject to medical fitness. While he was waiting for a formal letter of appointment, on

20.8.2009 another revised select list was published in the web site in which his name was found missing. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. While admitting the writ petition on 24.9.2009, this Court granted interim direction in W.P.M.P.No:26833 of 2009 to the effect that if any of the candidates are appointed pursuant to the revised list, in their orders of appointment, the respondents shall mention that such appoints are subject to orders in WP No.20581 of 2009. The respondents have filed the vacate stay petition W.V.M.P.30 of 2009 seeking to vacate the same along with a counter, wherein it is categorically stated that the respondents followed the guidelines of the Government of India and provided the reservation for the appointment and accordingly, out of 122 candidates selected for the post of Information Technology Officer in M.M.G Scale-II, 23 posts were reserved under S.C., 8 posts were reserved under S.T and 17 posts were reserved under OBC, and 74 candidates were selected in general category who obtained more than the cut of marks of 177 and in the instant case, the writ petitioner has got only 169 marks. Therefore, the entire process of selection was done transparently by keeping the information on web site and there is no arbitrariness in appointments made by the respondent Bank. In response to the contentions raised in the counter filed by the respondent-Bank, no additional affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. It is also pertinent to note that in a judgment reported in State of Orissa Vs. Rajhkishore Nanda[1] the apex Court held at paragraph Nos.14,15: “14. A constitution Bench of Shankarsan Dash V. Union of India (AIR 1991 SC 1612) held that appearance of the name of a candidate in the this Court select list does not give him a right of appointment. Mere inclusion of candidate’s name in the select list does not confer any right to be selected, even if some of the vacancies remain unfilled. The candidate concerned that he has been given a hostile cannot claim discrimination.

Select list cannot be treated as a reservoir for the purpose of appointments, that vacancy can be filled up taking the names from that list as and when it is so required.