Karnataka High Court
Kaveri Grameena Bank vs Akash Sethi on 6 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO. 647 OF 2021 (S-RES)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 735 OF 2021 (S-RES)
W.A.NO.647 OF 2021:
BETWEEN:
INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION
REP. BY DIRECTOR, IBPS
IBPS HOUSE
90 FEET, D.P. ROAD
NEAR THAKUR POLYTECHNIC
OFF. WESTERN EXPRESS HIGH WAY
P.B. No.8587, KANDIVAL (E)
MUMBAI-400 101
REP. BY THEIR
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MANOJ K. BISWAL
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . AKASH SETHI
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
S/O ASHOK SETHI
RESIDENT OF 6-G-24
JAWAHAR NAGAR
SHRI GANGA NAGAR
RAJASTHAN-335 001
-
2
2 . JAYPRAVAS MISHRA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
S/O HEMANTA KUMAR MISHRA
R/O. BRAHAMANBHUIN
PO-KALARABANK
DIST-CUTTACK
ODISHA-754 132
3 . MANISH JANGIR
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
S/O SARDAR SINGH
R/O. WARD No.2
PO-MAKRO
VILL. SINGHANA
DIST. JHUNJHUNU
RAJASHTHAN-333 504
4 . SAJAN PUNYANI
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
S/O HARBANSHLALA PUNYANI
R/O. INDIRA COLONY
GALI No.9 WARD No.42
DIST. SRIGANGANAGAR
RAJASTHAN-335 004
5 . RAVI KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
S/O BALDEV PRAKASH
R/O. WARD No.4
PO-BOLANWALI, SANGARIA
DIST. HANUMANGARH
RAJASTHAN-335 063
6 . KUNDAN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
S/O BALMIKI PARASAD SINGH
R/O. VILL. JHITKAHI
PO-PHULKAN, PS SHYAMPUR
BHATAN, DIST. SHEOHAR
BIHAR -843 329
7 . KAUSHIK KUNAL
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
-
3
S/O RAN VIJAY PANDEY
R/O. PANDEY KOTHI
YARPUR, GARDANIBAGH
ROAD No.1
PATNA, BIHAR-800 001
8 . LOKANATH CHOUDHURY
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
S/O AWEDHESH KUMAR SHARMA
R/O. PLOT No.1859
MAHATAB ROAD
ANANT NAGAR, OLD TOWN
BHUBHNESHWAR
DIST. KHURDA
ODHISA-571 002
9 . SANWAR MAL JAT
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
S/O MADAN LAL
R/O. BAJROLI
MEERAN, SIKAR
RAJASTHAN-332 312
10 . SUMAN SAURABH SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
S/O AWADESH KUMAR SHARMA
R/O. KANHAULI KHADI
BHANDAR CHOWK
GANDHINAGAR, MUZAFFARPUR
BIHAR-842 002
11 . DIPU PANDEY
S/O ASHUTOSH PANDEY
AGED ABOUT 29 EYARS
R/O. GABHIRAR
PS-RAGHUNATHPUR
DIST.SIWAN
BIHAR-841 509
12 . VIJENDER KUMAR
S/O VINOD KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT WARD No.7, PO-NUKERA
-
4
TEHSIL SANGARIA
DIST. HANUMANGARH
RAJASHTHAN-335 063
13 . UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY DEPT. OF FINANCIAL SERVICE
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
3RD FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING
SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI-110 001
14 . KARNATAKA VIKASH GRAMEENA BANK
REP. BY CHAIRMAN
HEAD OFFICE, P.B.No.111
BELGAUM ROAD
DHARWAD-580 008
15 . KAVERI GRAMEENA BANK
REP. BY CHAIRMAN
CA-20
VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE
MYSURU-570 017
16 . PRAGATHI KRISHNA GRAMEEN BANK
REP. BY CHAIRMAN
POST BOX No.55, No.32
SANGANKAL ROAD
GANDHINAGAR
BALLARI-583 103
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARSHA P.B., ADVOCATE FOR R13;
SRI. BHARATH K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R7;
SMT. SUNIETA OJHA, SRI. SIDDHARTH SHANDILYA &
SRI. TALISH RAY, ADVOCATES FOR R6, R7, R10 & R11;
SRI. MOHAMMED MANNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R6, R7 &
R10;
SRI. T.P. MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R14 TO R16;
R2, R4, R5, R8, R9 & R12 ARE SERVED;
R5, R8, R9 & R12 - SERVED THROUGH E-MAIL V.C.O.
DATED 17.09.2024)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO (a) CALL FOR RECORDS IN WP
-
5
No.5317/2019 ON THE FIL OF THIS COURT AND (b) SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 16.04.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP No.5317/2019
AND ETC.
W.A.No.735 OF 2021:
BETWEEN:
1. KAVERI GRAMEENA BANK
REP. BY CHAIRMAN
CA-20, VIJAYANAGAR II STAGE
MYSURU-570 017
2. PRAGATHI KRISHNA GRAMEEN BANK
REP. BY CHAIRMAN
POST BOX No.55
No.32, SANGANKAL ROAD
GANDHINAGAR
BALLARI-583 103
(ON AMALGAMATION OF APPELLANT
Nos.1 AND 2 VIDE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION
DATED 22.02.2019 KARANATAKA GRAMINA BANK
CAME INTO EXISTENCE W.E.F. 01-04-2019)
3. KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEENA BANK
REP. BY CHAIRMAN
HEAD OFFICE
PB No.111
BELGAUM ROAD
DHARWAD-580 008
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. T.P. MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. AKASH SETHI
S/O ASHOK SETHI
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/O. 6-G-24, JAWAHAR NAGAR
SHRI GANGA NAGAR
RAJASTHAN-335 001
-
6
2. JAYPRAVAS MISHRA
S/O HEMANTA KUMAR MISHRA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/O. BRAHAMANBHUIN
PO-KALARA BANK, DIST-CUTTACK
ODDISSA-754 132
3. MANISH JANGIR
S/O SARDAR SINGH
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/O. WARD No.2, PO-MAKRO
VILL. SINGHANA
DIST.JHUNJHUNU
RAJASHTHAN-333 504
4. SAJAN PUNYANI
S/O HARBANSHLALA PUNYANI
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/O. INDIRA COLONY, GALI No.9
WARD No.42
DIST SRIGANGANAGAR
RAJASTHAN-335 004
5. RAVI KUAMR
S/O BALDEV PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/O. WARD No.4, PO-BOLANWALI
SANGARIA, DSIT-HANUMNGARH
RAJASTHAN-335 063
6. KUNDAN KUMAR
S/O BALMIKI PRASAD SINGH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/O. VILL- JHITKAHI, PO-PHULKAN
PS SHYAMAPUR, BHATAN DIST
SHEOHAR, BIHAR-843 329
7. KAUSHIK KUNAL
S/O RAN VIJAY PANDEY
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/O. PANDEY KOTHI, YARPUR
GARDANIBAGH, ROAD No.1
PATNA, BIHAR-800 001
-
7
8. LOKANATH CHOUDHURY
S/O AWEDHESH KUMAR SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/O. PLOT No.1859, MAHATAB ROAD
ANANT NAGAR, OLD TOWN
BHUBHNESHWAR, DIST-KHUDRA
ODHISA-751 002
9. SANWAR MAL JAT
S/O MADAN LAL
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/O. BAJROLI, MEERAN
SIKAR, RAJASTHAN-332 312
10 . SUMAN SAURABH SHARMA
S/O AWADESH KUMAR SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/O. KANHAULI KHADI
BHANDAR CHOWK
GANDHINAGAR, MUZAFFARPUR
BIHAR-842 002
11 . DIPU PANDEY
S/O ASHUTHOSH PANDEY
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/O. GABHIRAR
PS-RAGHUNATHPUR
DIST-SIWAN
BIHAR-841 509
12 . VIJENDER KUMAR
S/O VINOD KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/O. WARD No.7, PO-NUKERA
TEHSIL SANGARIA
DIST-HANUMANGARH
RAJASTHAN-335 063
13 . UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCIAL SERVICE
-
8
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
3RD FLOOR
JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING
SANSAD MARG
NEW DELHI-110 001
14 . INSTITUTE OF BANKING
PERSONNEL SELECTION
REP. BY DIRECTOR, IBPS
IBPS HOUSE, 90 FEET
D.P. ROAD, NEAR THAKUR POLYTECHNIC
OFF. WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY
P.B. No.8587, KANDIVALI (E)
MUMBAI-400 101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIBA R., CGC FOR R13;
SRI. BHARATH KRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R7;
SRI. RAVI SHANKAR A., ADVOCATE FOR R14;
SMT. SUNIETA OJHA, SRI. SIDDHARTH SHANDILYA &
SRI. TALISH RAY, ADVOCATES FOR R6, R7, R10 & R11;
SRI. MOHAMMED MANNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R6, R7 & R10;
R2, R4, R8 & R9 ARE SERVED;
R3, R5 & R12 - SERVICE OF NOTICE IS HELD SUFFICIENT
V.C.O. DATED 21.10.2024)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO (a) CALL FOR RECORDS IN WRIT
PETITION Nos.5317-5328/2019 (S-RES) ON THE FILE OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT AND (b) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
16.04.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT
PETITION Nos.5317-5328/2019 (S-RES) AND ALLOW THE WRIT
APPEAL AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 13.02.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
-
9
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
Both these writ appeals arise from the common
judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 16.04.2021 in
Writ Petition No.5317/2019 (S-RES).
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing in
these matters on all sides.
3. Writ Appeal No.647/2021 is filed by the Institute
of Banking Personnel Selection (‘the IBPS’ for short), which
was the fifth respondent in the Writ Petition, being aggrieved
by the directions of the learned Single Judge to fill up the
vacancies from the reserve list. Writ Appeal No.735/2021 is
filed by the Kaveri Grameena Bank, Pragathi Krishna
Grameena Bank and the Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank,
which were respondents No.3, 4 and 2, respectively in the
Writ Petition. The issue raised is with regard to the
recruitment of Officers and Office Assistants in Regional
Rural Banks. The selection in question was conducted by the
IBPS on the basis of Annexure ‘C’ – Notification dated
–
10
22.07.2017, which provided for a common recruitment of
Officers, Scale – 1, 2 and 3 and Office Assistant
multipurpose. The process was called CRP RRB-VI in short.
The Notification provided for filling up the vacancies in the
Regional Rural Banks (RRB’s). The indicative number of
vacancies was also provided in the Notification. The
Notification provided that on completion of the interview
process/main examination depending on the vacancies to be
filled in as per the business needs of the RRBs and as
reported to the IBPS, the candidates short listed will be
allotted to one of the RRBs based on merit-cum-preference.
Thereafter, orders of appointments would be issued by the
RRBs.
4. It was further provided in the Notification
specifically as follows:-
“A reserve list to the extent of vacancies as per
extant provision will be drawn in each category subject
to exigencies and availability of candidates This does not
guarantee provisional allotment to recruitment by the
RRBs. ln the event of RRBs providing further vacancies,
provisional allotment will be carried out for the
candidates in the reserve list subject to vacancies being
provided within one year after the date of provisional
allotment. However if no vacancy is furnished by the
RRBs owing to exigencies or otherwise during the validity
period the candidates under the reserve list will not be
–
11
considered for provisional allotment. The reserve list will
expire automatically on the day which is one year after
the date of Provisional Allotment or until a fresh
provisional allotment is made, whichever is earlier, with
or without any notice. Candidates who are not
provisionally allotted or not in the reserve list will not be
considered for any further process under CRP RRBs- VI.
IBPS is not responsible in case the RRBs do not
notify sufficient vacancies to exhaust the reserve list.
Similarly, neither the RRBs nor IBPS is bound to notify
every vacancy that may arise in any RRB during
pendency of reserve list. IBPS is not responsible for the
recruitment of candidates, and will only act upon the
vacancies notified by the RRBs in that regard within the
specified period.
The decision of IBPS in provisional allotment of
RRBs shall be final and binding upon the selected
candidates. However IBPS reserves the right to cancel,
reallot Organisation-wise allocation/change the process
depending upon exigencies or otherwise.
Provisionally allotted candidates (subject to
fulfilling all required criteria) may be posted anywhere.”
(emphasis supplied)
5. The Writ Petitioners had approached the Court
filing the Writ Petition on 29.01.2019 stating that they were
included in the reserve list and that the said list remains
valid till 31.01.2019. They contended that though
representations had been preferred by them, the IBPS and
the RRBs were making appointments from the fresh
provisional list which was published pursuant to CRP RRB-VII
and that the same was illegal. They therefore sought
–
12
appointment to vacant posts in the RRBs on account of their
inclusion in the reserve list. The Writ Petition was admitted
and an interim order was passed on 30.01.2019 directing
the respondents to keep the requisite posts vacant and also
validity of the panel shall not be treated as expired as on
31.01.2019.
6. The IBPS as well as the appellant – RRBs had filed
objections before the learned Single Judge. It was the
specific case of respondents No.3 and 4 that the provisional
allotment list pursuant to CRP RRB-VI was prepared and
communicated on 01.02.2018 and the fifth respondent –
IBPS had not forwarded the list of reserve candidates,
though it is contended that the list was prepared. It was
submitted that no vacancies which were intended to be filled
up were reported by the RRBs concerned to the IBPS. The
IBPS had conducted a fresh selection as CRP RRB-VII,
pursuant to a Notification dated 08.06.2018 and a fresh
provisional allotment had been made on 01.01.2019. It was
therefore contended that the RRBs could not be forced to
operate an expired list and make appointments there from.
–
13
7. On the directions of the learned Single Judge,
details of vacancies which were in existence was placed on
record in the form of an affidavit by the General Manager of
the Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank before this Court.
However, there also it was specifically stated at paragraph 9
as under:-
“9. I state that the Petitioners have approached
this Hon’ble Court on 29.01.2019 seeking mandamus,
directing the Respondent Bank to issue appointment
orders. The Hon’ble Court granted ex-parte interim order
on 30.01.2019 directing the Respondents to keep the
requisite posts vacant and also validity of the panel shall
not be treated as expired as on 31.01.2019. As per the
notification for recruitment – CRP RRBs VI (Annexure C to
the Writ Petition), the reserve list would expire
automatically one year from the date of provisional
allotment, i.e., on 31.01.2019 or until a fresh allotment
is made, whichever is earlier. The Respondent No 5 has
made fresh provisional allotment of candidates on
01.01.2019. Hence, the Writ Petition does not survive for
consideration.”
8. The IBPS had also filed the Statement of
Objections stating that the IBPS is not a “State” under
Article 12 of the Constitution of India and no writ would lie
against it. However, it was further contended that Annexure
–
14
‘C’ Notification specifically provided that the validity of the
common recruitment process for RRB- VI will automatically
expire at the close of business on the day on which one year
from the date of provisional allotment would end or until
fresh provisional allotment is made, whichever is earlier, it
was specified that CRP for RRB-VII was held and the
provisional allotment was made on 01.01.2019 and
therefore, the validity of the reserve list under RRB-VI had
expired on 31.12.2018. The materials in support of such
contentions were also placed on record along with an
additional Statement of Objections filed by the IBPS on
05.01.2021.
9. However, the learned Single Judge after
considering the contentions advanced formulated the
following questions for consideration:-
(1) Whether the writ petition filed under
Article 226 is not maintainable on the
ground that the petitions filed under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India
have been dismissed in limine on the
same set of facts and the prayer?
–
15
(2) Whether the petitioners have a right
to be considered for appointment in
the light of the fact that they were
placed in the reserve list? and
(3) Whether the action of the Bank
depicts illegality in the selection
process?"
10. Thereafter, the question whether the Writ
Petitioners could have filed the present Writ Petition after a
Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
raising the same grounds has been dismissed was
considered in detail. The learned Single Judge found that
despite the dismissal of a writ petition under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India by the Apex Court, the candidates
could have agitated their contentions under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. Further, it was held that though
the persons included in the select list had no indefeasible
right for appointment, in view of the fact that vacancies
were in existence, the reserve list ought to have been
operated and the petitioners should have been appointed
from the list. The Writ Petition was accordingly allowed and
a writ of mandamus was issued to the respondents-RRBs to
–
16
consider the case of the petitioners who are included in the
reserve list and to offer them appointments if they are found
to be otherwise eligible within three months from the date of
the copy of the judgment.
11. The learned counsel for the appellants submits
that the life of the reserve list prepared was only till the
fresh provisional allotment under the subsequent selection,
that is, CRP RRB-VII. Since the fresh provisional allotment
was effected on 01.01.2019, as admitted by the Writ
Petitioners, there was no question of operating the expired
reserve list after the said date. It is contended that the
learned Single Judge failed to take note of the specific words
“whichever is earlier” in the relevant notification and that
the judgment under appeal is liable to be set aside on that
short ground alone.
12. The Learned counsel places reliance on the
following judgments:-
• Subha B. Nair and Others v. State of Kerala and Others,
reported in (2008) 7 SCC 210;
–
17
It is contended that once the validity of the list has
expired, there can be no direction issued to make
appointments from the said list, even if vacancies are in
existence.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the
respondents, on the other hand, contends that the
contention of the RRBs before the learned Single Judge was
that no reserve list was made available to them and even if
such list was prepared, because of their financial conditions,
they did not intend to make appointments against the
available vacancies. It is contended that this contention was
per se incorrect in view of the fact that the very same
vacancies were reported to the IBPS and were filled up in
the subsequent selection. It is therefore contended that the
RRBs who are admittedly ‘State’ under Article 12 of the
Constitution of India cannot conduct the selections in
violation of their own notifications. It is further contended
that the very same contention with regard to the very same
selection had been considered by the other High Courts and
relief had been granted to identically situated petitions.
–
18
14. The learned counsel appearing for the
respondents placed reliance on the following judgments:-
• Manoj Manu and Another v. Union of India and Others,
reported in (2013) 12 SCC 171;
• Sandeep Singh v. State of Haryana and Another, reported
in (2002) 10 SCC 549;
• Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank v. Jyoti, by Order dated
25.09.2024 passed in LPA-2279-2024 (O & M);
• Abhishek Kumar & Others v. The Institute of Banking
Personnel Selection & Another, by Order dated
06.07.2023 passed in CWP-29443-2018 (O & M);
• Subhash Chhilar and Others v. Union of India and
Another, by Order dated 21.12.2022 passed in W.P(C)
5211/2022 & CM APPL. 15475/2022;
• Rahul Jain S/o Ashok Kumar Jain v. Baroda Rajasthan
Kshetriya Gramin Bank, by Order dated 18.08.2022 passed
in D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.100/2022;
• Varun Dhiman v. State of H.P. & Others, by Order dated
20.07.2021 passed in CWP No.3366/2020;
• Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi and
Others, by Order dated 22.11.2024 passed in Civil Appeal
No.13001 of 2024;
• Food Corporation of India v. M/s. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed
Industries, reported in (1993) 1 SCC 71;
• Sivanandan C.T. and Others v. High Court of Kerala and
Others, reported in (2024) 3 SCC 799;
–
19
• M/s. Laxmi Khandsari and Others v. State of U.P. and
Others, reported in (1981) 2 SCC 600;
• Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank v. Paras Kumar, by Order
dated 07.02.2025 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil)
Diary No(s).2096/2025;
• Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank v. Paras Kumar, by Order
dated 25.09.2024 passed in LPA-2326-2024 (O & M);
• Jyoti v. Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, by Order dated
13.10.2023 passed in CWP-18546-2021 (O & M);
• Evan v. Bartlam reported in 1937 A.C. 473;
• Charles Osenton & Co v. Johnston in 1942 A.C. 130;
• Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi &
Others in C.A.No.131001 of 2024;
• T.C. Basappa v. T Nagappa reported in (1954) 1 SCC 905;
and
• Dwarka Nath vs. ITO reported in (1965) 57 ITR 349.
15. We have considered the contentions advanced.
The relevant portion of Annexure ‘C’ – Notification pursuant
to which the petitioners participated in the selection
provided for drawing up of a reserve list. However, it was
specifically provided that inclusion in the reserve list does
not guarantee provisional allotment for recruitment. If the
RRBs report vacancies to the IBPS within one year after the
–
20
date of provisional allotment, allotment will be made from
the reserve list. If no vacancy is furnished during the
validity of the list, no allotment shall be made.
16. It is pertinent to note that the validity of the
reserve list was specifically provided for as under:-
The reserve list will expire automatically on the day
which is one year after the date of provisional allotment or
until a fresh provisional allotment is made, whichever is
earlier, with or without any notice. It is further provided
that the candidates included in the provisional list but are
not provisionally allotted will not be considered for any
further process under CRP RRB-VI.
17. Therefore, the question is whether the reserve list
is liable to be operated once provisional allotment is made
consequent to a subsequent advertisement dated
08.06.2018.
The answer would be an emphatic ‘No’.
18. It is trite law that a person included in a select list
does not have a vested right to contend that he/she shall be
–
21
appointed against the notified posts. The right of the
persons included in a select list or a reserve list is
specifically subject to the provisions of the Notification which
governs the selection in question. In the instant case, there
is admittedly, a provision for preparation of a reserve list.
However, the Notification does not disable the selecting
agency from conducting fresh selections in respect of
vacancies which may arise after the initial provisional
allotment or even those vacancies which arise during the
course of the selection. The meaning of the provisions with
regard to the reserve list as found in Annexure ‘C’ –
Notification can only be that in case no fresh selection is
conducted during the life of the reserve list, then, the
reserve list can be operated for a period of one year after
the initial provisional allotment has occurred. However, the
life of the list is one year or till a fresh provisional allotment
occurs, whichever is earlier. (emphasis supplied). Therefore,
if a fresh provisional allotment after a fresh selection
notification occurs before the period of one year expires;
then, the reserve list stands expired on that date. In the
–
22
instant case, a further provisional allotment was admittedly
made on 01.01.2019 and on such date, the validity of the
earlier reserve list expires. The petitioners in the instant
case had approached this Court only after the expiry of the
reserve list in which their names found a place.
19. All the decisions relied on by the learned counsel
for the petitioners are rendered in cases where the
candidates included in the reserve list had approached the
Courts when the subsequent advertisement was issued by
the IBPS without operating the reserve list. It is after
considering the fact that the validity of the Reserve List is
for one year after the date of provisional allotment or until a
fresh provisional allotment is made, whichever is earlier that
the other High Courts and the Apex Court had ordered that
the Reserve List is bound to be operated.
20. However, in the instant case, the subsequent
advertisement was issued on 08.06.2018 and the selection
continued without any challenge being raised by any of the
persons included in the reserve list. The provisional
–
23
allotment pursuant to the subsequent advertisement/notification was admittedly issued on 01.01.2019 (Annexure-R9). It is only thereafter, on
29.01.2019, that is, admittedly after the validity of the
reserve list had expired by issuance of the fresh provisional
allotment, that the petitioner had approached this Court.
21. The writ petition having been filed after the
validity of the reserve list had expired, the prayer as sought
for could not have been granted. The respondents’ right to
be considered for appointment also stood expired on
01.01.2019. In the circumstances, the contention raised
that the reserve list ought to have been operated by the
RRBs before the subsequent advertisement was issued
cannot be a ground to issue a direction as has been done by
the learned Single Judge.
22. We are of the clear opinion that the persons, who
approached the court only after the expiry of validity of the
list in which they were included, cannot have any better
right than persons who have admittedly participated in the
–
24
subsequent selection and obtained provisional allotment.
None of the judgments relied on consider the situation as
available in the instant case. We are therefore of the opinion
that the appeal should succeed.
23. In the result:-
(i) Writ Appeals are allowed;
(ii) Order dated 16.04.2021 passed in
W.P.No.5317/2019 (S-RES) by the learned
Single Judge is set aside;
(iii) W.P.No.5317/2019 stands dismissed.
Pending IAs, if any, shall stand disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
cp*
