IBPS Can't Refuse To Recommend Names Of Eligible Candidates With Desired Merit To Fill All Notified Vacancies In Banks: Rajasthan High Court

Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Kuldeep Mathur, observed,

"The Recruiting Agency cannot deny allotment of eligible candidates to participating RRBs (Regional Rural Banks) arbitrarily especially when sufficient number of candidates are available with it. The whole exercise cannot be reduced to a farce."

Essentially, a notice was issued by IBPS provisionally allotting selected candidates to the post of Officer Scale-II (GBO) to RRBs on the basis of requisitioned post-wise and category-wise vacancies. In this notice, the vacancies belonging to Officer Scale-II (GBO) in Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank ('BRKGB') were shown as 'nil' thereby depriving the appellants of appointment in BRKGB. On enquiry, the appellants came to know that BRKGB under the directions of sponsor bank i.e. Bank of Baroda had informed IBPS to withdraw all post-wise and category-wise vacancies requisitioned under CRP-RRBs-IX. However, BRKGB by a subsequent communication asked IBPS to allot selected candidates stating inter alia that the sponsor bank had allowed it to continue with the recruitment.

Later, the IBPS declined the request stating that once the provisional allotment is complete, the same is final as no change or re-allotment can be made. Consequently, no candidate was provisionally allotted to BRKGB. The present intra court appeal was directed against the Single Bench' order, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners (appellants herein) seeking a direction upon respondents to fill up 126 vacancies pertaining to Officer Scale-II (GBO) by allotting candidates as per merit and preference to BRKGB was dismissed.

The court observed that each Regional Rural Bank has been clothed with the powers to appoint such number of officers and other employees as it may deem necessary/desirable for efficient performance of its functions, on such terms and conditions as may be determined from time to time. The court stated that the Sponsor Bank does not have any role in the matters relating to recruitments in the RRBs other than extending aid and assistance to RRBs by subscribing to share capital and training the personnel working in connection with the affairs of the RRBs.

The court observed that IBPS being a recruiting body consisting of experts acts as a link between suitable candidates with required eligibility for banking services and participating banks/financial institutions/other organisations searching for prospective candidates as per the operational requirements. The court opined that the action of IBPS in declining to allot the candidates against advertised vacancies of BRKGB on the ground that provisional allotment of candidates to RRBs in order of merit and preference had already been made cannot be said to be justified.

It was added by the court that the Recruiting Agency cannot deny allotment of eligible candidates to participating RRBs arbitrarily especially when sufficient number of candidates are available with it. Placing reliance on East Coast Railway and another v. Mahadev Appa Rao & others (2010) and Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991), the court opined that the whole exercise cannot be reduced to a farce.

Further, it was observed that if the decision of IBPS not to include 126 vacancies of BRKGB in the recruitment process in question is upheld, then it will not only deprive the appellants from appointment in their preferred RRB indicated in the online application form i.e. BRKGB but will also hinder prospective candidates from seeking appointment to the post of Officer ScaleII (GBO) available in RRBs in order of merit.

In this regard, the division bench ruled,

"In the light of above discussion, the special appeal is allowed. IBPS is directed to allot 126 candidates against the post of Officer Scale-II (GBO) to BRKGB in order of merit and preference. The seats falling vacant thereof due to aforesaid exercise in participating RRBs, shall be filled in by recommending suitable candidates to RRBs in order of merit and preference. The entire exercise indicated above shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of this order."

The appellants' counsel argued that IBPS had no authority to deny allotment of suitable candidates to BRKGB against the vacancies of Officer Scale-II (GBO). He further argued that IBPS is merely a recruiting agency entrusted with the responsibility of conducting recruitment process to fill up various posts in Regional Rural Banks through direct recruitment and promotions. He added that the role of a recruiting agency is confined only to identifying best suitable candidates against posts requisitioned by the employer.

The IBPS' counsel argued that the sole function of IBPS in the instant recruitment process was selecting suitable candidates for the RRBs against various posts as per their requirements. He added the final decision with regard to appointment/final selection/recruitment rests with the participating RRBs subject to eligibility criteria enunciated by them. He submitted that in the present case, BRKGB withdrew its vacancies and therefore, no candidates were provisionally allotted to BRKGB against the vacancies of Officer Scale-II (GBO).

Further, the counsel for BRKGB submitted that the BRKGB and sponsor bank have no objection whatsoever if selected candidates are allotted against available notified vacancies.

Adv. S.P. Sharma appeared for the appellants while Adv. Vipul Dharniya and Adv. Anil Bhandari appeared for the respondents.

Case Title: Rahul Jain & Ors. v. Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 223