AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Antony Dominic, J.—These appeals are filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C).Nos.29200 of 2012 and 805 of 2013. To fill up three vacancies in the category of Junior Clerks, the first respondent Bank initiated selection process by inviting applications. On conclusion of the selection process, a rank list was prepared, in which appellant in W.P.(C).No.29200 of 2012 was Rank No.4. During the currency of the rank list, which was valid upto 16/1/2013, rank numbers 1 to 3 were appointed.
According to the appellant, subsequently, on 11/11/2011 rank No.1, who was appointed by the bank, resigned. The appellant also claimed that there were three other vacancies. In such circumstances, the appellant claimed appointment and that resulted in Ex.P8 order of the Joint Registrar directing the appointment. The appellant sought implementation of Ext.P8 by filing W.P.No.29200 of 2012 and the bank challenged the order of the Joint Registrar in W.P.(C) No.805 of 2013.
The cases were heard by the learned Single Judge, who by the common judgment, which is impugned in these appeals, dismissed W.P.(C).No.29200 of 2012 and allowed W.P. (C).No.805 of 2013. It is in these circumstances, the appellant has filed these appeals.
We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel for the first respondent and also gone through the materials produced on record.
Admittedly, in the selection process that was initiated by the bank for filling up three vacancies, the rank list in question was prepared in which the appellant was Rank No.4. During the currency of the rank list, which expired on 16/1/2013, bank appointed rank holders 1 to 3. The resignation vacancy arose only on 11/11/2011 and the other 3 vacancies now claimed by the appellant also arose subsequently. First of all the declared number of vacancies have already been filled up and apart from that, going by the stand taken by the bank, on account of its adverse financial position, the bank has decided that the vacancies now available need not be filled up for the present.
The fact that the vacancies are available does not entitle a person in the rank list any indefeasible right to appointment. It is always open to the appointing authority to appoint or not to make appointment for valid reasons. In so far as this case is concerned, the stand taken by the bank is that on account of its financial position it has decided not to fill up the present vacancies. Nothing has been shown to us to hold that the decision taken by the Bank is illegal or malafide. If that be so, for both the above reasons the appellant cannot compel the bank to appoint him relying on Ext.P3 rank list. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Single Judge negativing the contentions raised by the appellant is unassailable.
The Writ Appeals are dismissed.