JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.
1. The petitioners in this application have prayed for the issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to absorb them its services allegedly on the ground that they have put in 240 days of temporary service for a continuous period of 12 months after January 1, 1982, up to December 31, 1990. The petitioners have also sought for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give preference in the matter of appointment in terms of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. The respondent-bank was established under the provisions of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976.
3. Petitioner No. 1 allegedly worked from January 1, 1982, to January 22, 1983, i.e., for a period of more than 240 days. Petitioner No. 2 allegedly worked for the period from July 17, 1981, to June 4, 1982. Petitioners Nos. 3 to 11 also allegedly worked for more then 240 days after January 1, 1982, and before December 31, 1990.
4. All the petitioners admittedly were retrenched. However, the details of the employment of the petitioners had not been given nor copies of their: appointment letters had been produced.
5. It is admitted that the petitioners along with various other persons filed various suits in the Civil Court of Darbhanga, being Title Suit No.65 of 1982, T.S.No. 18 of 1983, T.S.No.68 of 1982. However, all the aforementioned suits were withdrawn. It is stated that petitioner No.3 has filed a writ application being Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5910 of 1993, which is pending hearing in this court. It is also stated that petitioner No. 10 has also filed a writ application, being Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1866 of 1983, which is also pending.
6. However, petitioners Nos.2 to 10 also filed writ applications, in this court, but the same had been withdrawn. According to the petitioners they always offered themselves for appointments and in terms of Section 25-H of the said Act, they were entitled to some preference. An advertisement had been issued on September 21, 1988, for filling up the 17 vacant posts of clerk and pursuant thereto 17 persons had been appointed.
7. According to the petitioners, in terms of the circular letter dated March 12, 1991, issued by the Central Bank of India, the petitioners were entitled to be absorbed in the services of the bank without any test or interview.
8. Allegedly, the petitioners filed the representation on July 26, 1991, and pursuant thereto a guidance was sought for by the Chief Manager(P), Zonal Office, Muzaffarpur, from the Central Office, Bombay, by his letter dated August 6, 1991, but no action had been taken in relation thereto.
9. In this case, an application for stay has been filed wherewith an extract of the result of the candidates who had come out successful has been annexed.
10. Mr. Basudeo Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, raised three contentions in support of this application.
Learned counsel submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioners were entitled to be absorbed in terms of the circular letter of the Central Bank of India as contained in annexure “3” to the writ application, the respondent-bank could not have issued any advertisement nor can appoint other persons pursuant thereto.
It has further been submitted that in any event, the petitioners were entitled to be treated preferentially in the matter of appointment in terms of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Learned counsel further submitted that in any event, the respondent-bank was bound to dispose of the representation of the petitioners.
11. In this case, evidently the petitioners had questioned the validity of their retrenchment which took place in the year 1983. They filed title suits in which interim orders of injunctions were passed, but later on they withdrew the said suit, although it has not been disclosed in the writ petition as to when the same was done.
12. It has also been stated that the various writ applications have been filed by the petitioners and two of them are pending consideration, whereas one has been withdrawn by some of the petitioners themselves.
13. In this situation, this court cannot entertain another writ application questioning the validity or otherwise of the retrenchment of the petitioners, which took place as far back as in the year 1983.
14. Further, in my opinion, if there has been a violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the remedy of the petitioners, if any, was to invoke the provisions of the said Act.
15. So far as the contention of Mr. Basudeo Prasad to the effect that the petitioners were entitled to be absorbed in service, it cannot be entertained at this stage.
16. It appears that the advertisement had been issued by the Banking Services Recruitment Board, Patna, as contained in annexure “11” to the writ application in respect of the vacancies of 17 rural banks.
17. It is not the case of the petitioners that pursuant to the said advertisement they had filed applications for appointment. Evidently a written test was held as also interview had been taken by the Banking Services Recruitment Board and persons have been selected for appointment in terms thereto.
The list of successful candidates had been published in newspaper and Nav Bharat Times, dated September, 21, 1988, which is contained in annexure “18” to the writ petition filed by the petitioners under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
18. There cannot be any doubt mat in terms of the aforesaid recommendations of the Board, the candidates must have been appointed by now. This writ application has been filed on January 28, 1993, whereas the process of selection was completed in September, 1988. No explanation for the delay in filing the writ application has been offered in this regard by the petitioner. At this juncture, in my opinion, the petitioners cannot be directed to be appointed by the respondent-Board by issuance of a writ or in the nature of mandamus.
19. The petitioners apparently did not file any application for their appointment pursuant to the aforementioned advertisement. They, therefore, cannot now complain that they were entitled to preferential appointments in terms of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act.
20. Further, in view of the fact that the vacancies have already been filled up or are likely to be filled up, the same cannot be directed to be cancelled at this stage, particularly in the absence of the successful candidates being before us.
21. It must also be borne in mind that the Board had selected candidates in relation to 17 rural banks and thus it would be wholly unjust and unfair to cancel all the appointments which are inter-related or inter-dependent.
22. In any event, as it is well known that the writ court should not ordinarily entertain a writ application on the ground of alleged violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act as a
Writ Court cannot convert itself into an Industrial Court.
Reference in this connection may be made to Basant Kumar v. Eagle Rolling Mills Ltd., (1964-II-LLJ-105)(SC).
23. So far as the matter of regularisation of the petitioners is concerned, the same would depend upon the fact as to whether there exists any further vacancy or not.
24. In any event, annexure “12” has been issued pursuant to a bipartite agreement between the Central Bank of India and its union which may not be binding upon the rural banks. In this situation, I am of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
25. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this application, which is accordingly dismissed.
Gurusharan Sharma, J
26. I agree.
