JUDGMENT
Rajesh Balia, J.
1. According to the petitioner, the respondent-Dungarpur-Banswara-Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Dungarpur is a creature of Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. It is financed by National Bank of Agriculture and Rural Development (for short, ‘ NABARD’) and is sponsored by the Bank of Baroda, which is a nationalised Bank. The respondent Bank issued an advertisement on 16.11.1985 for appointment of 30 officers in the services of the respondent Bank. As a result of written examination and interview, the Bank prepared a list of selected candidates which is produced as Annx. 7 with the writ petition, in which the name of the petitioner finds place at serial No. 33. Apparently, 30 names were empanelled against the advertised vacancies and 3 candidates were included as reserve, for, 10% of the total number of vacancies were to be included in the panel as reserved-list; of the selected candidates. In the intimation given to the petitioner vide Annx. 2, it was made clear that name of the petitioner has been placed on the panel to be utilised for filling up the future vacancies. This panel was to be valid upto 29th February, 1988. Out of the names included in the aforesaid panel Annx. 7, only 24 persons were initially offered appointment. By the resolution dated 19.2.1988, the Board of Directors of the respondent-Bank resolved to extend the life of the panel for a period of 6 months from 1.3.1988. It is further alleged by the petitioner that in the month of July, 1988, the Board of Directors of the respondent-Bank decided to give appointment to aforesaid selected candidates from the panel, subject to permission by NABARD. The NABARD, through intimation in the month of August, permitted the respondent-Bank to make appointments by 31st August, 1988. However, the respondent-Bank failed to make appointments even upto 31st August, 1988 from the remaining candidates of the aforesaid panel Annx. 7. Instead, the Bank issued an advertisement dated 1 2.8.1 988 for fresh recruitments.
2. Shri Dinesh Kumar, Madan Puri, Umed Ujwal and Shri Mangal Ram Verma, who were placed at Serial Numbers 25, 29, 31 and 32 respectively; filed writ petitions No. 1 of 1989, 3758 of 1988, 3757 of 1989 and 90 of 1989 respectively, before this Court for the relief that once their names have found place in the panel of selected candidates and the life of the panel has been extended upto 31st August, 1 988, the respondent-Bank was bound to offer appointment to them before making fresh recruitments. The petitioner did not file writ petition then nor did he make any representation in this regard at anytime.
3. The aforesaid writ petitions were allowed by judgment dated April 11, 1991 Before the aforesaid judgment was delivered by this Court but during the pendency of the said writ petitions, the selections had also taken place in pursuance of the advertisement dated 1 2.8.1 988 and appointments were offered to the persons selected in pursuance of the fresh selections. Since the aforesaid four petitions filed by the aforesaid four persons named in the panel Ex. 7, were allowed; the petitioner has filed this writ petition for grant of the same relief which has been granted to other four persons whose names found place in the panel, after filing a representation before the respondent-Bank vide his letter dated 14.10.1991 and serving a notice for demand of justice, dated 29.11.1991.
4. The short contention of the petitioner is that the reliefs granted in the decision of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3758 of 1988 and connected cases, decided on April 11,1991 (supra) has been confined to those who have approached the Court and no general direction has been issued, thus, direction of the same nature may be issued in the case of the petitioner to put him at par with other four persons who had earlier came to this Court .
5. In support of this contention, the petitioner has also placed reliance on 1 989 SC 829-Professor CD. Tase v. University of Bombay and Ors.
6. Having bestowed my careful consideration. I am afraid, the petitioner’s contention cannot be accepted. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3758 of 1988, this aspect of the matter was considered at the request of the respondent-Bank that even if the panel was deemed to be alive upto August 31, 1988, the appointment must proceed in accordance with the merit declared in the panel and no direction can be given to appoint persons with random merit. This contention was specifically repelled by the Court as under:
It was contended on behalf of the respondent-Bank that the petitioners cannot be appointed out of turn and ho pick and choose policy can be permitted. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has drawn my attention to a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana , wherein out of select list, several, successful candidates were not appointed but only one of them filing writ petition challenged the selection. The petitioner was found entitled to be appointed against the post kept vacant pursuant to Court’s interim order. It was held that other successful candidates though similarly situated but in view of their failure to question the selection and lapse of two years, they cannot be held entitled to a general order for appointing all of them thereby upsetting subsequent selections and creating confusion. Consequently, the petitioner who knocked the doors of the Court alone was held to be entitled to the grant of relief. Thus, it is not a question of pick and choose. In this case, a panel of 33 persons was prepared and out of that panel, only 9 persons were not granted appointments and only four persons have knocked the doors of the Court. The term of the Panel Annexure R-1 has already expired and a new panel has come into force and appointments have been accorded from that Panel and, therefore, the entire process cannot be upset because that will result in confusion and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears just and proper that these four petitioners also be given appointments because they have knocked the doors of the Court for relief.
7. Thus, it is apparent that in the present context, there is a cautious and conscious direction to appoint only those four persons who had come to the Court before the new panel was prepared and appointments therefore had been offered, and, the claim of any person under the Panel Ex. 7 after the life of the panel expired, was refused to be entertained by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In view of the fact that the matter has earlier received consideration by this Court and a prayer for making any appointment out of the Panel Ex. 7 for who approached for appointment after the expiry of the Panel, was explicitly refused by this Court on an earlier occasion; the principle laid down in 1989 SC 829 cannot be invoked.
8. It may be noticed that in taking the above view, the learned Judge had relied on the ratio of Supreme Court’s decision in Neelima Shangla’s case (supre).
9. For the same reasons, the decision rendered in 1988(2) RLR 618 also cannot be invoked in the present case.
10. Faced with this dilemma, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that once a panel is prepared, its life cannot be extinguished until it is fully exhausted and the respondents are under obligation to offer employment to all the candidates whose name find place in the select list. For this proposition, the petitioner relies on a decision of Supreme Court in Prem Prakash and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1984 SC 1831.
11. Having carefully examined the Prem Prakash’s case, I am of the opinion that this decision does not lend any assistance to the petitioner. Firstly, the case was decided on the basis of a Circular issued by the Government of India regarding the life of Panel prepared under the various rules governing employment under the Central Government and the Court held that the instructions contained in the Circular dated 8th February, 1982 by the Ministry of Home Affairs is not inconsistent with any statutory rules and, therefore, these directions have to be read alongwith the rules for giving effect to the rules. It can not be said that the appointment in question are under the Central Government. Therefore, the aforesaid Circular issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs governing employment under the Central Government under various rules framed for the purpose cannot be invoked in favour of the petitioner for deeming the life of the panel of selected candidates ad infinitum. That apart, even the aforesaid Circular on which the petitioner has placed reliance and which was the subject matter of the decision in Prem Prakash’s case (supra) makes a clear distinction between the selected candidates against declared number of vacancies and those selected against future vacancies. The Circular covers the list of selected candidates against the declared number of vacancies to be kept alive until it exhausted but makes no such provision in keeping alive the reserve-list as well. The relevant portion of the Circular as re- produced in the aforesaid judgment, is extracted below:
Normally in the case of direct recruitment a list of selected candidates is prepared to the extent of the number of vacancies (other persons found suitable being put on a reserve list in case some of the persons on the list of selected candidates do not become available for appointment). Similarly, in the case of Departmental competitive Examinations the list of selected candidates has to be based on the number of vacancies on the date of declaration of results as the examination is competitive and selection is based on merit. A problem may arise when there is a fluctuation in the vacancies after the list of selected candidates is announced.
12.- Their Lordships of the Supreme Court also observed:
…The notification further shows that there should be no limit on the period of validity of selected candidates prepared to the extent of declared vacancies…
13. Thus, the life of the Panal of selected candidates was held to be indefinite only to the extent it was corresponding to declared vacancies. Admittedly, in the present case, the declared vacancies were 30 and petitioner’s name find place at the bottom in the reserve-list of the selected candidates, as it is apparent from the judgment in Madan Puri’s case. In this view of the matter, the principle enunciated in 1984 SC 1831 also do not support the petitioner’s contention that he is entitled to seek a mandamus on the basis of his name having been found place in the Panel Ex.7.
14. I, therefore, do not find any force in contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
The petition is dismissed summarily.