The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Exhibit P2 order passed by the first respondent rescinding a resolution of the third respondent society. The contention of the petitioner is that, the petitioner was not heard before Exhibit P2 was passed. 2. The third respondent bank had issued a notification on 31.10.2010 for the purpose of conducting selection and appointment to two posts of Attender/Salesman. Pursuant to the notification, a selection was conducted and a rank list was published on 04.12.2011. According to the petitioner, at the time of issuance of the notification there were in fact three vacancies, though only two were notified. To the vacancies that were notified, the two persons, who were ranked 1 and 2 in the rank list were appointed. Subsequently, the petitioner was appointed to the third vacancy on 15.06.2013, as per Exhibit P1. The petitioner has been working in the bank ever since.
3. While so, the 4th respondent submitted a petition to the first respondent seeking to rescind the resolution appointing the petitioner alleging that there was irregularity in the appointment. Without hearing the petitioner, the third respondent has passed Exhibit P2 order rescinding the resolution. Consequently, it is stated that the petitioner would be terminated at any time.
4. According to the learned Special Government Pleader Sri.D.Somasundaram who appears for respondents 1 and 2, only two vacancies had been notified by the third respondent. Appointments were also made to the two notified vacancies, in 2011 itself. It was long thereafter that, the petitioner was appointed from the same rank list. According to the learned Government Pleader, appointment to a post that was not notified is impermissible as held by the Apex Court in Balaji Gunthu Dhule v. State of Maharashtra [2012 (4) KLT SN 107 (C.No.95) SC]. Exhibit P2 order has been passed after hearing the 4th respondent as well as the third respondent society. Therefore, it is contended that there are no grounds to interfere with Exhibit P2.
5. Heard. A perusal of Exhibit P2 shows that the same has been passed after hearing the 3rd and 4th respondents. What was challenged before the first respondent was the resolution of the third respondent dated 13.06.2013. Since it was the resolution that was sought to be rescinded, it was sufficient that the society as well as the 4th respondent who had raised the complaint were heard. I notice from Exhibit P2 that, the third respondent had contested the matter by appearing through its present President, former President as well as the Secretary. The first respondent has considered the matter and found that only two vacancies had been notified on 29.10.2011 by publication in the newspapers. There was no stipulation in the notification that the rank list would be valid for a period of two years from the date of publication or that, vacancies that may arise in future would also be filled up from the rank list prepared pursuant to the notification. It has been noticed that, the decision of the Managing Committee was only to make appointments to the two vacancies of Attender/Salesman that were available on the date of notification. Immediately after the rank list was prepared, the two vacancies that were notified were also duly filled up.
6. After the decision to appoint the persons who were ranked 1 and 2 had been taken by the Managing Committee, it appears to have been decided that the rank list be given a period of validity of two years. Long thereafter, it was only on 13.06.2013 that the petitioner was decided to be appointed. The said appointment is irregular for the reason that the vacancy had not been notified and for the further reason that, it was made from a list that was prepared in the year 2011 the validity of which had been extended by a decision taken after deciding to appoint two persons from the said list.
It was for the above reasons that the first respondent has found the resolution to be irregular and unsustainable. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the said decision or to grant any of the reliefs sought for. This writ petition is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE kkj