The petitioner, pursuing his Law degree in a Government Law College, being desirous of securing employment in a Nationalised Bank, applied for the post of Probation Officer (PO) in any of the 19 Public Sector Banks, in response to Ext.P2 recruitment notification issued by the 1st respondent. Having secured minimum qualifying marks, when he was not eventually successful in getting appointed under unreserved category, the petitioner filed the present writ petition questioning lack of transparency in the recruitment process adopted by the first respondent. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the common written examination conducted by the first respondent recruitment agency, the petitioner secured 140 marks, the minimum qualifying marks being 135, as could be seen from Ext.P11. In the first round of recruitment, the candidate who secured 62.12 was last selected, and later in the second round of recruitment, a candidate who secured 60.56 minimum mark was selected as the last candidate under unreserved category. Evidently, the petitioner could not be selected, for he secured less than 60.56 marks.
3. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that though lakhs of people have appeared for the common written examination and secured more than the minimum qualifying marks, the list of those candidates has not been published at any point of time by the first respondent. He has further submitted that even with regard to the two rounds of recruitment, the marks obtained by the candidates who are successful have never been displayed by the first respondent even in its website.
4. Elaborating on his submissions, the learned counsel has submitted that the whole selection process being adopted by the first respondent is shrouded in secrecy. He has contended that, apart from the individual communication to the candidates who secured minimum marks, there is no other means of ascertaining whether all the candidates who have been appointed secured better marks than those who have been left out. In this regard, the learned counsel has drawn my attention to paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent. On the strength of the averments made by the first respondent therein, the learned counsel would contend that, having placed on record that they prepared the rank list well in advance, the first respondent ought to have published it, thus informing all the candidates, either successful or unsuccessful, where they stand in the rank list and whether they could hope for any appointment in repeated rounds of recruitment within one year.
5. Thus, summing up his submissions, the learned counsel has submitted that the selection process adopted by the first respondent has been totally vitiated and required to be set aside with further directions to it to re-conduct the selection process. To stress the aspect that in the absence of publication of a select list, the selection process cannot be said to have been completed, the learned counsel has relied on State of A.P v. D. Dastagiri [(2003) 5 SCC 373]
6. Further, placing reliance on State of U.P V. Ram Swarup Saroj [(2000) 3 SCC 699], the learned counsel has also submitted that merely because one year lapses, it cannot be concluded that the candidates whose names were found in the select list are without any remedy unless the recruitment itself takes place in the same year. In other words, the learned counsel has contended that it is not the process of recruitment that assumes importance, but the date when the vacancy arose.
7. In sum and substance, the learned counsel would contend that once the vacancy arose in a particular year, even if that were to be filled up in the next year, the candidates ought to be selected from the list of the year when the vacancy arose.
8. Eventually, the learned counsel has drawn my attention to Ext.P5, another recruitment notification issued by the 1st respondent to fill up the vacancies for the year 2014. According to the learned counsel, when the select list of the year 2013 was subsisting, Ext.P5 was issued. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that by way of premature publication of Ext.P5 notification, in a whimsical manner, the first respondent had ensured that even the vacancies of the year 2013 could be made available to the candidates who responded to Ext.P5 notification, which is meant only for the next year i.e., 2014. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged the Court to allow the writ petition.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent, in tune with the averments made in the counter affidavit, has submitted that the whole process is marked by transparency and that there is no force in the contention of the petitioner that the first respondent recruitment agency has acted whimsically. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner secured only 56.8 marks, way below the minimum mark secured by the last candidate, who had been recruited in the year 2013. On the issue of informing the candidates about the relative performance of all other candidates or the marks obtained by those candidates, the learned counsel has submitted that it is very cumbersome and impracticable.
10. Insofar as Ext.P5 is concerned, the learned counsel would contend that the first respondent could not wait until the beginning of the next year to have the notification issued, for, evidently, the selection process would take considerable time and in the meanwhile if the member banks are to notify the vacancies for that year, it will be difficult to have the recruitments made on time. In this regard, the learned counsel has pointed out that the very Ext.P2 notification for the vacancies to be filled up for the year 2013 was issued way back in 2012. As such, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner, who took advantage of Ext.P2 notification, to contend that Ext.P5 notification should have been published only the next year. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent urged this Court to dismiss the writ petition as devoid of merit.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent, apart from perusing the records.
Issues:
1. Whether the selection process adopted by the first respondent suffers from lack of transparency?
2. Whether Ext.P5 was published prematurely in 2013 for the recruitments in the year 2014, thus depriving the successful candidates in the rank list of 2013 an opportunity of securing employment.
12. Concerning the first issue, it can be seen that all the 19 Public Sector Banks desired to have common recruitment process through one recruitment agency both for Probation Officers and Clerical Staff to work in their organizations. Accordingly, the first respondent, a specialised recruitment agency, has been entrusted with the task of selecting the meritorious candidates through the process of common written examination (CWE) and interview. It is not in dispute that the first recruitment through the first respondent took place in 2011. Later, for the vacancies to be filled up in 2013, Ext.P2 notification was issued on 17.02.2002. The petitioner, a candidate for the post of Probation Officer, faced the common written test and secured 140 marks, 135 being minimum marks. Thus, he was communicated through Ext.P11 the marks he secured. Later, having faced the interview, he secured a combined score of 56.8 as could be seen from Ext.R1(c). Ext.R1 (c) score card has also been individually communicated to the petitioner.
13. It is pertinent to observe that the rank list prepared based on the combined score of all the successful candidates has the validity period of one year. The modus operandi seems to be that in any particular year as and when the member banks notifies the vacancies and informs the first respondent, it allots the candidates from among the rank list of the meritorious candidates in terms of the vacancies notified.
14. Thus, in the first round of recruitment that took place on 22.03.2013, as could be seen from Ext.R1(d), the candidate who secured 60.56 marks was the last candidate appointed under unreserved category. Totally, 3,008 candidates were appointed under unreserved category and all of them secured over and above 60.56, the marks secured by the last of those 3008 candidates. In the second round of recruitment that took place on 05.08.2013, as could be seen from Ext.R1(f), the last successful candidate appointed under unreserved category secured 60.56 marks. Since the petitioner secured only 56.08, he could not be selected.
15. In any event, as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the first respondent, the member banks do not notify their vacancies to the 1st respondent all at the same time. On the contrary, on more than one occasion, they may intimate the first respondent seeking particular number of candidates to be appointed in each of their banks. Accordingly, from the rank list having its currency for the said year, the first respondent is allotting the candidates to the respective Banks based on their rank in the select list. I do not see any incongruity in the process adopted by the 1st respondent.
16. This Court, however, is inclined to observe that there is some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the days of advanced technology and web publication, nothing prevented the first respondent from having, rather it is desirable to have, the rank list published at least in the website of the first respondent, instead of individual communication, so that all the candidates could appreciate their relative merit, apart from knowing whether they could entertain any genuine hope for getting appointed in that year. Indeed, it is impossible to communicate each and every candidate the whole list of successful candidates. At any rate, it is desirable to have the rank list published in the website of the first respondent.
17. Another aspect to be taken care of is that the recruitment in any given year under a particular notification does not take place all at once. It is, in fact, in a phased manner, i.e., as and when the member banks notify the vacancies. Under Ext.P2, in the year 2013 the appointment of the candidates from the rank list is said to have taken place on two occasions. In such an eventuality, each time, whenever candidates are appointed from the rank list based on the demand of the member banks, it is desirable for the first respondent to publish in its website the particulars of the successful candidates who have thus been appointed, with the marks secured by them indicated against their names or roll-numbers, as the case may be.
18. It is axiomatic that transparency is the hallmark of fairness. Once the candidates have ample opportunity of ascertaining the marks obtained by the successful candidates who are not numerous, by having access to the first respondent’s website, it will avoid a lot of misgivings and heart- burn on the part of the unsuccessful candidates. Insofar as the rest of recruitment process is concerned, I do not see any secrecy or deviance in the first respondent’s approach, so as to nullify the entire selection process. Accordingly, the first issue is answered.
19. Concerning the second issue, it is the singular grievance of the petitioner that while the select list prepared for the year 2013 was in currency, the first respondent issued Ext.P5 notification calling for applications for the post to be filled up in the next year i.e., 2014. As has been rightly contended by the learned counsel for the first respondent, the very Ext.P2 notification under which the petitioner applied was issued in February, 2012, much before the year 2013 could commence. It is not in dispute that Ext.P2 selection process was intended for the recruitment only in the year 2013, but the whole process began much in advance. In my considered opinion, it is not only desirable but also essential that the selection process should commence well in advance so that it would not be hurried through by the time the vacancies were notified. It is one thing to say that all appointments in a particular year shall be made from the select list meant for that year; it is entirely another thing to say that all vacancies arising in one year shall be filled up from the rank list of that year alone.
20. I am given to understand that the recruitment process adopted by the 19 Public Sector Banks is based on the vacancies being notified periodically by those banks. In other words, the member banks are not obligated to fill up all the vacancies arising in one particular year from the select list of that year. All that is required to be followed is that if any recruitment in actual terms takes place in a particular year, the vacancies are to be filled up only from the select list made for the said year, without any reference to when the actual vacancies arose, for the employer has liberty to fill up the vacancies, notwithstanding the actual date of arising, as and when it is convenient or expedient for the employer to have it filled up.
21. I therefore do not see any illegality in the first respondent’s issuing Ext.P5.
22. If we examine the judicial dicta laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions cited at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in D. Dstagiri (supra), initially the selection process was initiated and substantially completed, save the task of publishing the select list. In the meanwhile, in view of the change of regime at the helm of affairs, the said selection process was abandoned. In that context, the candidates who are believed to be successful in the selection process initiated by the Government laid challenge against the abandonment of the recruitment process. In that context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once the entire process has been completed, it is not permissible for the employer to abandon the process. But, if the select list has not been published, it cannot be stated that the process has been completed giving rise to any vested or indefeasible right in favour of the selectee. I do not see any scope for applying the ration of the said decision here.
23. In Ram Swarup Saroj (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the plea that a list of selected candidates for appointment to the State services remains valid for a period of one year only is primarily a question depending on facts. The select list was finalised in the month of November, 1996, and the writ petition was filed by the respondent therein in the month of October, 1997, i.e., before the expiry of one year from the date of the list. Merely because a period of one year has elapsed during the pendency of litigation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held, relief cannot be declined on that ground, if the candidate has been found otherwise entitled to be appointed. I do not see any factual parity to apply the said principle in the present instance. It is not the case of the petitioner that any recruitment, apart from the first two rounds of recruitments as was indicated above, took place in the year 2013 whereby any candidates successful under Ext.P5 were appointed. In the absence of any such eventuality, I do not see any ground to apply the judicial dictum of Ram Swarup Saroj.
24. Before parting with the matter, though the contention as to the non-selection of the petitioner or setting aside the entire process of selection does not find favour with this Court, it is requisite to issue the following directions to the 1st respondent to ensure transparency in future recruitment process:
(a) The first respondent shall ensure publication of rank list with combined score of the successful candidates against their names or roll-numbers in its website, and
(b) The first respondent shall also display in its website the particulars of successful candidates along with their combined marks as and when they are appointed in any of the member banks, so that all the unsuccessful candidates could rest assured that only the candidates who secured higher marks than themselves have been appointed.
25. Needless to observe that these measures are directed to be undertaken by the first respondent only to ensure transparency, which is the hallmark of fairness.
With the above observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
rv