Prakshit Goswami And Anr vs State And Ors

Arun Monga, J

Petitioners herein seek directions to the respondents to consider their candidature for the post of General Bank Officer (GBO) based on their scores obtained during the recruitment process in the year 2013.

Relevant facts, shorn of unnecessary details, as pleaded in the petition are as follows:-

2.1 The Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) is an autonomous body registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and a public trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. It has been authorized to conduct written examinations for Regional Rural Banks (RRBs). The Government of India, through NABARD, has approved the common examination system for recruiting officers and office assistants in RRBs.

2.2 IBPS invited applications for the recruitment of Officers (Scale I, II, & III) and Office Assistants (Multipurpose) in RRBs as per their advertisement. The common written examination was tentatively scheduled for September-October 2013. The petitioners applied online for the General Banking Officer (GBO) Scale II position and appeared in the exam on 22.09.2013. They scored 116 marks, as per the results announced by IBPS in November 2013, with the score valid until 14.11.2014.

2.3 Previously, MGB had invited applications for 48 vacant General Banking Officer Scale II positions, with the last date for online registration being 09.10.2013. While 30 posts were filled, 19 posts remained vacant. The petitioners, whose CWE scores were declared after the vacancies were filled, filed an RTI request and were informed on 25.11.2014 that the 19 backlog posts were still unfilled.

2.4 In February 2015, RMGB issued another advertisement to fill up 19 backlog vacancies, along with 50 additional posts, totaling 69 General Banking Officer Scale II positions. The petitioners, who belong to the OBC category, were eligible to apply for these vacancies. The cut-off score for General Banking Officer Scale II in the 2013 advertisement was 114 for the OBC category, while the 2015 advertisement set the qualifying score at 80.

2.5 Between the release of the petitioners’ CWE scores in November 2013 and their expiration in November 2014, no new vacancies were announced, and the backlog posts remained unfilled. The petitioners, with a score of 116, met the requirements for both the 2013 and 2015 advertisements, where the minimum qualifying score was 114 and 80, respectively.

2.6 The petitioners submitted representations to the respondent-bank, requesting consideration of their candidature based on their valid CWE scores for the backlog vacancies. Despite sending reminders on 16.02.2015, they received no response.

Stand taken in the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3-IBPS is as follows:-

3.1 The advertisement/notification dated 01-07-2013 clearly states in Para A: "It should be noted that IBPS is a test conducting agency. The ultimate recruitment will be done by each participating RRB, which will independently issue a separate recruitment notification, specifying vacancies and eligibility criteria. IBPS does not guarantee recruitment. Recruitment is subject to the vacancies of individual RRBs, where IBPS has no role." It is important to note that IBPS's role in the CWE-RRB-II process was limited to conducting the online examination and declaring the results. The subsequent selection process for various posts in RRBs was handled by the individual RRBs based on their specific terms, conditions, and requirements.

3.2 Additionally, as mentioned in Para-J of the advertisement (Annexure-1) issued by Respondent No. 3, the IBPS scorecard is valid only for one year from the date of issuance. Since the petitioners' scorecards were issued on 15.11.2013 and were valid until 14.11.2014, neither the participating organizations can recruit candidates after the scorecard's validity expires, nor can candidates make any claims beyond that period. Therefore, this writ petition should be dismissed.

In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel representing the respondents IBPS and Bank.

Having heard the arguments and after perusal of the case file along with the appended record, it transpires that no doubt petitioners had appeared for Common Written Examination for recruitment of Officers (Scale I, II & III) and Office Assistants (Multipurpose) in regional Rural Banks (RRBs) in which their result was declared on 15.11.2013 in which both of them secured 116 marks. It transpires that no subsequent selection was carried in the year 2015 qua the post in question the last selected candidate in the category in which petitioners had applied were also lesser marks than the petitioners and therefore, the instant petition was preferred on the grounds that there has been a violation of the merit list maintained by the respondents.

On the first flush, the petitioner's assertion seems attractive, as they have more marks than the candidates selected in 2015. However, a deeper look at the matter reveals otherwise in as much as Clause (J) of the advertisement for the year 2013, when the petitioners had taken the examination, states in no uncertain terms as below:-

“J. VALIDITY OF CWE SCORES

Score issued by IBPS will be valid for one year from the date of display of the Score on the IBPS’s website and will be considered for recruitment exercise during that period.”

The petitioners’ result was declared and displayed on the IBPS website on 15.11.2013 and was valid up to 14.11.2014. It transpires that during the said period, the respondents did not advertise any vacant post for being filled up. The petitioners though dispute the same and submit that posts were though vacant, but they were purposely not filled up.

I am unable to agree with the aforesaid assertion canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner, in as much as, mere vacancy does not confer any right on a candidate to seek issuance of mandamus for appointment on the post in question in case the employer does not have any requirement of work on the said vacancy. Availability of vacancy and requirement of the job on the post in question operate in different spheres.

The vacancies are generally sanctioned in anticipation of the same being filled up in future as and when there is any requirement by the employer to make the recruitment. The petitioners’ claim that they are more meritorious is also completely misplaced, as the marks of the candidates with whom the petitioners are competing were obtained in the selection process conducted in 2015, by which time, the petitioner's score had lapsed due to the passage of time, as per Clause (J) ibid.

Furthermore, it was open to the petitioners to undertake the examination in 2015, but having chosen not to compete in the subsequent selection process, they acquiesced to their fait accompli. It is only after discovering that the marks of candidates in the subsequent selection process were lower than what they had obtained the previous year that they chose to file the instant writ petition.

The course adopted by them is nothing but that of fence-sitters, completely speculative in nature and based on marks that were no longer valid as of the date when the 2015 advertisement process commenced.

As an upshot, no grounds to interfere are made.

Petition is dismissed.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.