{"id":83238,"date":"2003-09-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-09-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baitarani-gramiya-bank-vs-pallab-kumar-and-ors-on-10-september-2003"},"modified":"2018-03-19T23:48:46","modified_gmt":"2018-03-19T18:18:46","slug":"baitarani-gramiya-bank-vs-pallab-kumar-and-ors-on-10-september-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baitarani-gramiya-bank-vs-pallab-kumar-and-ors-on-10-september-2003","title":{"rendered":"Baitarani Gramiya Bank vs Pallab Kumar And Ors on 10 September, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Baitarani Gramiya Bank vs Pallab Kumar And Ors on 10 September, 2003<\/div>\n
Bench: M.B. Shah, Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2050-2052 of 1996\n\nPETITIONER:\nBAITARANI GRAMIYA BANK\n\nRESPONDENT:\nPALLAB KUMAR AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/09\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nM.B. SHAH & DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
2003 Sjupp(3) SCR 571<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<\/p>\n
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. : These appeals are directed against the judgment
\nand order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa dated
\n26.09.1994 in O.J.C. Nos. 1866, 2981 and 5052 of 1991.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court, by the impugned judgment, has allowed the writ petitions
\nfiled by the respondents herein and has directed the appellant-Bank to
\nissue appointment orders to them for the post of Officer\/Field Supervisors.\n<\/p>\n
For the purpose of recruitment, the Banking Service Recruitment Board
\n(hereinafter referred to as “the BSRB”) issued an advertisement in the
\nnewspapers. The contention of the Bank before the High Court was that in
\nview of the financial crisis they had revised their indents submitted to
\nthe BSRB, long before the publication of the results regarding intimation
\nof selection and as such the BSRB ought not to have gone ahead and issued
\nletters of selection based on the original indent submitted by the Bank to
\nthe candidates and that merely by getting an intimation of selection, no
\nright accrues to the candidates for appointment.\n<\/p>\n
The selections to the category of Officers in the Bank is done by the BSRB.
\nIndents are submitted by the Bank to the BSRB. By letter dated 14.01.1987,
\nan indent was placed by the Bank to the BSRB. In the said indent for the
\ncategory of Officers, 36 posts were mentioned and for the category of Field
\nSupervisors, 61 posts were mentioned. Thereafter, by letter dated
\n23.06.1987, the indent for Field Supervisors was revised from 61 to 30. By
\nfurther letter 18.11.1987 another revised indent was submitted, wherein the
\nrequirements were as follows :\n<\/p>\n
Officers Cadre          …            36<\/span><\/p>\n
Field Supervisors      …            30<\/span><\/p>\n
On 23.08.1988 a revised indent was submitted by the Bank to the BSRB under
\nwhich their requirements were as follows :\n<\/p>\n
Officers                    …            14<\/span><\/p>\n
Field Supervisors      …            11<\/span><\/p>\n
This letter was replied to by the BSRB on 01.09.1988 whereunder they
\nrefused to accommodate the Bank’s request. According to the Bank, as stated
\nin the grounds of special leave petition, the reasons which had pruned
\ntheir indent well ahead of the publication of the results were :\n<\/p>\n
(a)  the Bank incurred loss of more than Rs. 7. crores;\n<\/p>\n
(b)  the target in the various anti-poverty programmer could not be met on
\naccount of the loss;\n<\/p>\n
(c)  the ban imposed by the State Government, for the opening of further
\nbranches, in view of the loss;\n<\/p>\n
(d)  due to poor recovery performances, the rural banks became ineligible
\nfor refinance from NABARD and<\/p>\n
(e) due to the Award given by the National Industrial Tribunal on
\n30.04.1990, all staff of Gramiya Bank were equated with the corresponding
\nstaff of the Sponsor Bank as regards pay and allowances and all other
\nbenefits with retrospective effect from 1987. In view of this the arrears
\npayable to the existing employees alone come to Rs. 2. crores and
\nestablishment expenditure increased by 150%.\n<\/p>\n
According to the Bank they had bona fide and genuine reasons for pruning
\ndown the indent and the Bank had communicated the revised indent by
\n23.08.1988, well ahead of the publication of the results and if the Banks
\nare forced to accommodate Officers and Field Supervisors more than their
\nrequired indent, it will have a crippling effect on the Bank.\n<\/p>\n
As already noticed, the Bank had placed a revised indent in view of the
\nchanged circumstances. However, the BSRB expressed its unwillingness to
\naccept the revised indent and they had stated that the matter will be
\nconsidered by the Board. In the meeting of the Board held on 11.11.1988, it
\nwas decided that no reduction in the original indent was to be done. The
\nBSRB expressed their unwillingness to accommodate the appellant-Bank’s
\nrequest and sent nomination letters to the respondents based on the
\noriginal indent and also published the results and also intimated the
\nselection on 28.11.1988. The respondents\/candidates aggrieved by the non-
\nabsorption filed writ petitions in the High Court seeking Mandamus
\ndirecting the appellant-Bank to appoint them in the respective posts. The
\nmatter was placed before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division
\nBench observing that as a common merit list was drawn by the BSRB, there
\ncan be no dispute that the appointments have to be strictly in accordance
\nwith the merit list, in view of the conflicting views expressed in various
\ndecisions placed the writ applications before a larger Bench to decide the
\nquestion as to (a) when specific vacancies were intimated by the Gramiya
\nBanks for appointment to the posts of Field Supervisors and Officers, and
\nin pursuance of their indent, the BSRB conducted one common examination,
\nand the petitioners were successful, whether they can be denied the orders
\nof appointment by the concerned Bank on the ground of financial crisis, (b)
\nwhen BSRB after conducting examination in respect of all the posts prepared
\none merit list and because of individual choice, any\/some successful
\ncandidates were allotted to a particular Bank whether the Bank, to which
\nany successful candidate is allotted can refuse order of appointment even
\nif the candidate is higher up in the select list. Particularly, in this
\ncase while other Banks issued appointment orders to other successful
\ncandidates, non-issuance of appointment letters by Baitarini Gramiya Bank
\nwill be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and (c)
\nwhether a person selected in pursuance of an advertisement for selection
\nhas a right to demand order of appointment, if he is higher up in merit
\nlist, and others lower in the merit list are appointed in other Banks.\n<\/p>\n
The Full Bench held as follows :\n<\/p>\n
“Coming to the question referred to us, we may say that the ground given in
\nthe present case for slashing down is “financial crisis”. As to this
\nreason, we would say, as admitted by Shri Dora that the entire finance for
\nGramiya Banks comes from outside sources; 35% from the sponsor Bank, 15%
\nfrom the concerned State Government and the remaining 50% from the Central
\nGovernment. So, there is no financial contribution by the Gramiya Bank. We,
\ntherefore, do not understand as to what financial crisis was there or could
\nhave been there for the Bank at hand to slash down the indent to 14, unless
\nthat was a self-created crisis. Shri Dora submits that the crisis was
\ngenerated because the aforesaid authorised were not carrying out their
\nobligations. That, however, was a matter to be taken up with the concerned
\nauthorities. The selected candidates cannot be allowed to suffer because of
\nthis, as the result of the same may be that a selectee would not get
\nappointment even if he be higher in merit list whereas a candidate lower in
\nranking would get appointment, which could be totally against public
\ninterest and cannot be allowed to take place. This is our answer to
\nquestion No. (a).\n<\/p>\n
Question No. (b) answers itself in view of our answer to question No. (a).
\nTo reiterate, we say that once an allotment is made to a particular Bank,
\nit would not be open to it to refuse appointment which would even be
\nviolative of Article 16 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
As to question No. (c), we would state that though in law a selected
\ncandidate does not acquire an indefeasible right of appointment in view of
\nwhat has been held by a Constitution Bench in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of
\nIndia, AIR<\/a> (1991) SC 1612, which was followed by a three Judge Bench
\ndecision in Union of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh, AIR<\/a> (1993) SC 16, but the
\nScheme of selection of the Officers and other employees of the regional
\nrural Banks, to which we have referred, which requires examination of the
\nmatter by a centralised agency (the Board) and which permits giving of
\noption and visualises preparation of a select list as per descending order
\nof merit, would clothe a selectee higher up in the merit list with a right
\nto demand appointment if a person lower in the list has been appointed in
\nany other Bank, any other view would denude his fundamental right available
\nby the force of Article 16 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
The aforesaid are our answers to the three questions. Let the cases be now
\nplaced before the Bench which had made the reference for their disposal
\nkeeping in view the answers given.”\n<\/p>\n
The Division Bench after remand by the Full Bench passed the following
\norder:\n<\/p>\n
“As noted earlier, while referring the cases to the Full Bench, we had
\ndiscussed in detail the case of the parties and the contentions raised on
\ntheir behalf. Therefore, we do not like to burden this order by repeating
\nthe same in the said order. For the present purpose, it is sufficient to
\nstate that the Full Bench has answered all the three questions formulated
\nin favour of the petitioners. In that view of the matter, there is little
\nscope for doubt that the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs claimed.\n<\/p>\n
Accordingly the writ petitions are allowed. The opposite party Baitarani
\nGramiya Bank is directed to issue appointment orders to the petitioners in
\nthe respective posts for which they have been selected forthwith. There
\nwill be no order for costs.”\n<\/p>\n
Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 26.09.1994 of the Division Bench
\nof the High Court, the above three appeals were filed.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. K..V. Viswanathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Bank,
\nsubmitted that the impugned order has totally overlooked the prejudice that
\nwould be caused to public interest if the respondents are directed to be
\nappointed in the appellant-Bank. He also submitted that in the
\nadvertisement issued by the BSRB, based on their original indent, it was
\nclearly mentioned that the vacancies are approximate and likely to be
\nvaried upward or downwards depending on the needs of the indenting Banks
\nand that this aspect of the matter has not been considered at all either by
\nthe Full Bench or by the Division Bench of the High Court. He would further
\nsubmit that in the case of the appellant-Bank, the revised indent was
\nsubmitted on 23.08.1988, long before the publication of the result an
\nintimation of selection was sent to the respondents and the BSRB ought to
\nhave sent the nominations on the basis of the revised indent and not on the
\nbasis of the original indent and that for the fault of the BSRB, the
\nappellant-Bank cannot be prejudiced. In any case, he submitted that the
\nselection\/nomination does not confer a indefeasible right on the
\nrespondents to seek appointments and the selection intimation was not an
\noffer of appointment when in fact in the selection nomination itself it was
\nmentioned that the offer of appointment was to be made by the Bank. It is
\nto be noted that no such offer was made. He further submitted that the Bank
\nhad reduced the indent for bona fide reasons as stated in the grounds of
\nspecial leave petition and that the Bank had bona fide and genuine reasons
\nfor pruning down the indent.\n<\/p>\n
Referring to the Full Bench judgment of the High Court, Mr. Viswanathan,
\nlearned counsel submitted that there was no material cither before the Full
\nBench or before the Division Bench to prove that candidates with lesser
\nmerit had been favoured with letters of appointment and in the absence of
\nany material particulars, the Full Bench could not have been proceeded on
\nthe basis that candidates with lesser merit were given offers of
\nappointment and candidates with higher merits were denied. He would further
\nargue that, in any case, it is for the BSRB to accommodate the unabsorbed
\ncandidates since it was their fault of having proceeded on the basis of the
\noriginal indent and not on the basis of the revised indent in spite of
\ntheir own advertisement clearly intimated the candidates that the vacancies
\nnotified were only approximate and are likely to vary upwards or downwards
\ndepending on the needs of the indenting Bank, Mr. Viswanathan, in support
\nof his contention, placed reliance on the following judgments :\n<\/p>\n
1. Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India<\/a> reported in [1991] 3 SCC 47.\n<\/p>\n
2. Babita Prasad & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in [1993] Supp.
\n3 SCC 268.\n<\/p>\n
3. State of Bihar & Ors. v. Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees
\nUnion<\/a> (1986) & Ors. reported in [1994] 1 SCC 126.\n<\/p>\n
4.  Rani Laxmibai Kshetriya, Griming Bank v. Chand Behari Kapoor & Ors.,<\/a>
\nreported in [1998] 7 SCC 489.\n<\/p>\n
5.  State of A.P. & Anr. v. V. Sadanandam & Ors. reported in AIR (1989) SC
\n2060.\n<\/p>\n
6.  Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh & Ors.,<\/a> reported in
\n[1993] 1 SCC 154.\n<\/p>\n
Concluding his arguments, Mr. Viswanathan submitted that the judgment of
\nthe Division Bench impugned in these appeals is liable to be set aside and
\ninterfered with.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Vinoo Bhagat, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, in reply
\nto the arguments of Mr. Viswanathan raised a preliminary objection in
\nregard to the maintainability of the present appeals. He said that this
\nCourt had already dismissed an earlier special leave petition of the Bank
\nbeing Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2505 of 1992 by order dated
\n03.03.1992 against another judgment of the High Court directing the Bank to
\nappoint the respondent therein who was placed at serial No. 4 in the same
\nSelect List of Field Supervisors in which respondent No. 2 in the present
\nmatters (Special Leave Petition No. 738 of 1995) is placed at serial No. 3
\nand that the Respondent No. 2 is at a higher position in the same select
\nlist than the respondent in the earlier Special Leave Petition, he cannot
\nbe denied appointment when the person below him has been appointed pursuant
\nto the rejection of the earlier Special Leave Petition. He would further
\nsubmit that the writs issued by the High Court in two earlier writ
\npetitions, OJ.C. No. 1265 of 1991 (the one challenged in the special leave
\npetition mentioned above) and No. 6566 of 1991 (which was not challenged),
\nhave been implemented and the writ petitioners, Soya Prasad Rath and Anjan
\nKumar Mallik, have been appointed in their respective posts and, therefore,
\nit is illegal and improper that the appellant-Bank should thereafter
\nchallenge the High Court’s judgment in the remaining cases of the present
\nrespondents and, therefore, the plea in the present special leave
\npetitions\/ appeals that the appellant-Bank had to produce the indents due
\nto subsequent events was negatived in the two judgments of the High Court
\nalso and became final in respect of the same dispute and, therefore, these
\nspecial leave petitions are liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Arguing further, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
\nappellant-Bank was bound to disclose the dismissal of its previous special
\nleave petitions in identical matter, as also the fact that it had
\nimplemented the High Court’s writs issued in other similar matters, but it
\nhas chosen to indulge in suppression instead and therefore, the present
\nmatters are liable to be dismissed on account of such suppression. In
\nregard to the reasons for reducing the indent given by the Bank, learned
\ncounsel submitted that the reasons stated in the special leave petitions,
\nnamely, the financial constraints etc. find no place in the contemporaneous
\ndocumentary records and, therefore, the said reasons have been invented
\nsubsequently in an attempt to mislead this Court and, therefore, the
\nspecial leave petitions ought to be dismissed on this ground alone.
\nAccording to Mr. Vinoo Bhagat, learned counsel for the respondents, the
\nBank’s financial constraints were never cited as the reason before the
\nlitigation began and this reason has been dishonestly invented for the
\npurposes of litigation and as correctly noticed by the High Court, the
\nappellant is financed entirely by outside sources.\n<\/p>\n
It is further argued that the appellant-Bank has not even appointed the
\npersons eligible under its pruned list and that two of the respondents,
\nnamely, Tridip Kumar Dass at serial No. 4 in the select list of Officers
\nand Alekha Prasad Behera at serial No. 3 in the select list of Field
\nSupervisors were entitled to appointment even if the indent stood reduced
\nto 14 Officers and 11 Field Supervisors and the fact that they have not
\nbeen appointed makes it clear that the appellant’s case is entirely
\ndishonest. He would further urge that since the appellant-Bank did not
\nchallenge that judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court dated
\n14.09.1993 that judgment attained finality and it is the abuse of the
\nprocess of the Court to try and fault with the judgment in the present
\nmatters.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant-Bank filed rejoinder affidavit denying the allegations made
\nin the counter affidavit. The Chairman of the Bank has also filed an
\naffidavit on 10.04.2002 pursuant to the order dated 12.01.1996 of this
\nCourt. The said order Dated 12.01.1996 reads thus :\n<\/p>\n
“Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
Printing of appeals dispensed with. Appeals will be heard on the SLP paper
\nbooks with liberty to file additional papers, if any, within ten weeks.\n<\/p>\n
The petitioners will make appointmetns on the posts as indicated in their
\nlast indent on the basis of the merit list sent by the BSRB (respondent No.\n<\/p>\n
4). In respect of the additional persons whose names have been recommended
\nby respondent No. 4 for appointment with the petitioners, it will be open
\nto the respondent No. 4 to proceed on the lines similar to the guidelines
\ncontained in the letter dated 31.3.1993, annexure O to the SLPs with regard
\nto recruitment to the clerical cadre persons in regional rural banks.”\n<\/p>\n
It was submitted that pursuant to the above order, appointment orders were
\nissued to 9 Field Supervisors and 14 Officers and 2 Field Supervisors had
\nalready been appointed pursuant to the judgment of the High Court dated
\n08.11.1991 and 18.11.1991 in O.J.C. No. 1265 and O.J.C. No. 6506. It was
\nfurther stated therein that the appellant-Bank has also advised the BSRB.
\nBhubaneswar to take care of the candidates as per direction dated
\n12.01.1996 of this Court and as such the dossiers in respect of 11 Officers
\nand 19 Field Supervisors which were in excess of the Bank’s last indent
\nwere returned. It was also submitted in the affidavit that out of 30
\ncandidates, 23 appointment orders were issued by them, 5 Officers\/Field
\nSupervisors have joined the appellant-Bank on 10.04.1996. It was further
\nsubmitted that at the relevant time, there is no vacancy in any cadre in
\nthe appellant-Bank and as per the Government of India’s revised guidelines,
\nthe appellant-Bank is identified as having surplus man-power and that the
\naccumulated loss of the bank as on 31.03.2001 was Rs. 39.69 crores and the
\nBank is not in a position to absorb any more additional establishment cost.\n<\/p>\n
This affidavit was verified on 10.04.2002 and signed by the Chairman of the
\nBank. On the above pleadings, the following questions of law would emerge
\nfor consideration :\n<\/p>\n
(a)     Whether the respondents\/writ petitioners had acquired any
\nidefeasible right to be appointed to the posts in question, when the
\ndecision taken by the appellant-Bank not to fill up all the vacancies is
\nbased on bona fide and appropriate reasons;\n<\/p>\n
(b)     Whether the appellant-Bank is under any legal obligation or legal
\nduty to fill up any or all of the vacancies;\n<\/p>\n
(c)     Whether the appellant-Bank is entitled to revise their indents
\nsubmitted to the BSRB long before the publication of the results by the
\nBSRB in view of financial crisis as stated in the grounds of special leave
\npetition and<\/p>\n
(d)     Whether the basis indicated by the appellant-Bank can be
\ncharacterized to be mala fide or unreasonable.\n<\/p>\n
We have given our anxious consideration to the points urged by both the
\nlearned counsel with reference to the pleadings, documents and annexures.\n<\/p>\n
The entire basis for the arguments advanced by counsel for the respondents
\nappears to be the judgment of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in O.J.C.
\nNo. 1265 of 1991 in the case of Surya Prasad Rath and Another v. Baitarani
\nGramiya Bank dated 08.11.1991 and the subsequent dismissal of the special
\nleave petition by this Court on 03.3.1992. In this context, the respondents
\nhas failed to notice that there were two other judgments on the issue one
\nof the which was subsequent in point of time which accepted the contention
\nof the Bank and rejected the writ petition filed by the selected
\ncandidates. The said judgments are Ashok Kumar Sprang v. Secretary, BSRB
\nand Others, in O.J.C. No. 2902 of 1990 (page Nos. 81-89 of the paper-book.
\nBikini Bihari Das and Others v. Baitarani Gramiya Bank and Others in O.J.C.
\nNo. 1125 of 1991 dated 04.10.1991 (page Nos. 90-93 of the paper-Book).\n<\/p>\n
The respondents, in our opinion, has failed to appreciate the fact that in
\nview of the conflicting judgments, the Division Bench of the High Court of
\nOrissa by its order dated 19.04.1993 made a reference in this very matter
\nto the Full Bench of the Orissa High Court and the Full Bench of the High
\nCourt by its judgment-dated 14.09.1993 answered the questions and relegated
\nthe matter to the Division Bench for disposal in accordance with the
\nanswers given. The Full Bench while answering the questions has
\ncategorically held that a selected candidate does not acquire indefeasible
\nright of appointment in holding so, the Full Bench has placed reliance on a
\nConstitution Bench judgment of this Court in Shankarasan Dass v. Union of
\nIndia reported in AIR (1991) SC 1612 equivalent to [1991] 3 SCC 47 and
\nanother judgment by a Bench of three-judges of this Court in Union
\nTerritory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh<\/a> reported in AIR (1993) SC 16
\nequivalent to [1993] 1 SCC 154. The only exception made by the Full Bench
\n(about which the present appellant-Bank made a grievance in the present
\nappeals) is that the Full Bench has held that a selectee higher up in the
\nmerit list will have a right to demand appointment if a person lower than
\nin the list has been appointed in any other Bank.\n<\/p>\n
The Full Bench overlooked the fact that the advertisement extract (page
\n38-39 of the paper book) and the paper clipping clearly mentioned the
\nfollowing :\n<\/p>\n
(a)     \"Bank once opted for can not be changed later\".\n\n(b)    In the notes under item one it was mentioned that \"the above\n<\/pre>\n
vacancies are approximate and likely to vary upwards or downwards depending
\non the need of the indenting banks.”\n<\/p>\n
(c)     From the Full Advertisement, it is also clear in para in the left-
\nhand column under the head ‘Selection Procedure’ that the finally selected
\nwill be allotted to the regional rural bank for which the candidates
\noriginally opted.\n<\/p>\n
(d)     Further in para 10(a), it says (right-hand column 1st line) “the
\nchoice will be restricted to one RRB only.”\n<\/p>\n
(e)     Further in para 10(b) it says :\n<\/p>\n
“10(b) The candidates for posts of Officers and Field Supervisors (posts  1
\nand 2) should apply in separate applications along with requisite fee for
\nthe respective post. But for both the posts his choice will be restricted
\nto a single regional rural Bank.”\n<\/p>\n
All these clearly go to show that the assumption of the Full Bench that a
\nCommon Merit List for all the Banks is prepared and that a selectee higher
\nin merit list would be overlooked is incorrect. Further, the assumption
\nthat the procedure\/scheme visualises preparation of a select list as per
\ndescending order of merit, would clothe a selectee higher up in the merit
\nlist with a right to demand appointment if a person lower in the list has
\nbeen appointed in any other Bank, is also erroneous. No material or factual
\nfoundation was laid in the writ petition and nothing has been found
\nregarding this by the Full Bench. On the contrary, one of the writ
\npetitions annexed the Paper Publication of the final results and that
\nshowed that results were declared qua each Bank.\n<\/p>\n
Once the permise of the Full Bench is found to be erroneous, the judgment
\nof the Full Bench and the impugned order deserve to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
It was argued by learned counsel for the respondents that the Bank has
\nstated the aspect of financial crisis\/constraints for the first time in the
\nspecial leave petitions as the reasons mentioned by them in pruning down
\nthe indent. This statement is factually incorrect. The Division Bench, by
\nits common order, in O.J.C. Nos. 1866, 2981 and 5052 of 1991 while
\nreferring to the counter affidavit filed by the Bank has clearly stated
\nthat on account of various factors including liquidity crisis, ban order
\nfor opening new branches and on account of financial burden incurred on
\naccount of implementation of agricultural rural debt relief scheme and the
\naward given by the National Industrial Tribunal, the Authorities had
\ndecided not to fill up the posts though at the time of advertisement indent
\nhad been given. Thus, it is seen that counter affidavit in all the writ
\npetitions, the appellant-Bank has raised the aspect of financial crisis.
\nThis submission of the respondents is, therefore, liable to be rejected. In
\nregard to the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents though
\nthe appellant-Bank was bound to disclose the dismissal of its previous
\nspecial leave petitions in an identical matter, we are of the opinion that
\nthe same need not be disclosed in the present special leave petitions since
\nthe previous special leave petition was dismissed at the special leave
\npetitions stage (Annexure-Rl). This Court in a catena of decisions has held
\nthat the dismissal of special leave petition by a non-speaking order which
\ndoes not contain the reasons for dismissal does not amount to acceptance of
\nthe correctness of the decision sought to be appealed against. Such an
\norder does not constitute the law laid down by the Supreme Court for the
\npurpose of Article 141. In this context, we may refer to a recent decision
\nof this Court in Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.,<\/a> reported in
\n[2000] 6 SCC 359 (Three Judges).\n<\/p>\n
In regard to the argument of learned counsel for the respondents that the
\nFull Bench judgment of the Orissa High Court was not challenged and,
\ntherefore, that judgment has attained finality, learned counsel for the
\nrespondents is not correct in submitting so. The apellant-Bank could not
\nhave challenged the Full Bench judgment because the Full Bench answered the
\nquestions and relegated the matter to the Division Bench for disposal and
\nthe cause of action for filing the present appeals arose only after the
\nDivision Bench of the High Court disposed of the matters.\n<\/p>\n
In our view, the respondents\/writ petitioners had not acquired any
\nindefeasible right to be appointed to the post in question when the Bank
\nhas taken a decision not to fill up all the vacancies which is based on
\nsound bona fides and appropriate reasons. The Bank is also under no
\nobligation or legal duty to fill up any or all of the vacancies and that
\nthe basis indicated by the appellant-Bank for pruning the indents cannot at
\nall be characterized to be mala fide or unreasonable. The law is well-
\nsettled. This Court has taken the same view in the following judgments.\n<\/p>\n
In State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. v. V. Sadanandam and Ors. Etc. Etc. AIR<\/a>
\n(1989) SC 2060, this Court has observed as under :\n<\/p>\n
“The mode of recruitment and the category from which the recruitment to a
\nservice should be made are all matters which are exclusively within the
\ndomain of the executive. It is not for judicial bodies to sit in judgment
\nover the wisdom of the executive in choosing the mode of recruitment or the
\ncategories from which the recruitment should be made as they are matters of
\npolicy decision falling exclusively within the purview of the executive.
\nThe question of filling up of posts by persons belonging to other local
\ncategories or zones is a matter of administrative necessity and exigency.
\nWhen the rules provide for such transfers being effected and when the
\ntransfers are not assailed on the ground of arbitrariness or
\ndiscrimination, the policy of transfer adopted by the Government cannot be
\nstruck down.”\n<\/p>\n
This Court, in a judgment rendered by a Constitution Bench in Shankarsan
\nDash v. Union of India,<\/a> [1991] 3 SCC 47, observed as under :\n<\/p>\n
“Even if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate
\nnumber of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates do not
\nacquire any indefeasible right to be appointed against the existing
\nvacancies. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to
\nqualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they
\ndo not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules
\nso indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the
\nvacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of
\nacting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies
\nhas to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies of
\nany of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative
\nmerit of the candidates as reflected at the recruitment test, and no
\ndiscrimination can be permitted.”\n<\/p>\n
In Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh and Ors.,<\/a> [1993] 1 SCC
\n154, this Court has observed as follows :\n<\/p>\n
“A candidate who finds a place in the select list as a candidate selected
\nfor appointment to a civil post does not acquire an indefeasible right to
\nbe appointed in such post in the absence of any specific rule entitling him
\nto such appointment. He could be aggrieved by his non-appointment only when
\nthe Administration does so either arbitrarily or for no bona fide reasons.
\nHence such candidate, even if he has a legitimate expectation of being
\nappointed due to his name finding a place in the select list of candidates,
\ncannot claim to have a right to be heard before such select list is
\ncancelled for bona fide and valid reasons and not arbitrarily. In the
\ninstant case, when the Chandigarh Administration accepted the complaints
\nand cancelled the select list it cannot be said to have acted either
\narbitrarily of without bona fide and valid reasons.”\n<\/p>\n
In Babita Prasad and Ors. v State of Bihar and Ors., [1993] Supp. 3 SCC
\n268, this Court held that a panel, as prepared in the said case, cannot be
\ntreated as conferring any vested or indefeasible right to the teachers to
\nbe appointed. This Court further held as follows :\n<\/p>\n
“The mere fact that the candidates who had been brought on the panel had
\nbeen sent for training at the Government expense, would also not imply that
\nany right had been created in their favour for appointment after they had
\ncompleted their training because training was intended to confer
\neligibility on the candidates for being brought on the list.”\n<\/p>\n
In the case of the State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha & Ors.,<\/a>
\nreported in [1974] 3 SCC 220, this Court has observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
“The existence of vacancies does not give a legal right to candidate to be
\nselected for appointment. The examination is for the purpose of showing
\nthat a particular candidate is eligible for consideration. The selection
\nfor appointment comes later. It is open then to the Government to decide
\nhow many appointments shall be made. The mere fact that a candidate’s name
\nappears in the list will not entitle him to a mandamus that he be
\nappointed. Indeed, if the State Government while making the selection for
\nappointment had departed from the ranking given in the list, there would
\nhave been a legitimate grievance on the ground that the State Government
\nhad departed from the Rules in this respect.\n<\/p>\n
In order that mandamus may issue to compel an authority to do something it
\nmust be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on that authority and
\nthe aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its
\nperformance<\/p>\n
Since there was no legal duty on the State Government to appoint all the 15
\npersons who are in the list and the petitioners have no legal right under
\nthe rules to enforce its performance the petition was clearly
\nmisconceived.” In the case of U. P. Bhumi Sudhar Nigam Ltd. v. Shiv Narain
\nGupta.<\/a> reported in [1994] Supp. 2 SCC 541, this Court has observed as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
“…….We are of the view that the High Court fell into patent<\/p>\n
error in issuing the mandamus in the facts and circumstances of this case.
\nThis Court has authoritatively laid down that even if a vacancy is
\navailable and the employer bona fide declines to make an appointment, the
\ncandidate on the select lilst has no right whatsoever to claim appointment.
\nIn the present case, the post was abolished by the Board of Director in the
\nyear 1991. Shiv Narain Gupta in fact challenged before the High Court the
\naction of the Corporation in abolishing the post. Neither the facts of this
\ncase nor the law on the subject warranted any interference by the High
\nCourt in the writ petition filed by Shiv Narain Gupta. The Constitution
\nBench judgment in Shankarsan Dash case was cited before the learned single
\nJudge of the High Court. We are constrained to say that th learned Judge
\nfailed to appreciate the binding ratio of the said judgment.”\n<\/p>\n
Our attention was drawn to Annexure-J issued by the Government of India,
\nMinistry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division)
\ndated 31.03.1993 on the subject “Recruitment of Clerical Cadre Personnel in
\nRegional Rural Banks”. In the said communication, course of action was
\nadvised to the Chairman of all Banking Services Recruitment Boards to
\nresolve the problem. We are concerned only with regard to the course of
\naction II which reads thus :\n<\/p>\n
“As regards candidate who have already been selected for the posts of Clerk
\nof RRBs but have not yet absorbed\/appointed, the BSRBs concerned may follow
\nthe following Board guidelines :\n<\/p>\n
a.       BSRBs may invite indents from all the RRBs in a State in order to
\nmake an assessment of their actual requirement.\n<\/p>\n
b.      If the number of unabsorbed candidates is more than the indents
\nreceived from RRBs they may identify the candidates who fulfil the
\nrequirements in respect of’ age, qualification etc. for posting in the
\npublic sector banks.\n<\/p>\n
c.       They may get an option from such candidates found eligible as
\nstated above, for their posting to the public sector banks.\n<\/p>\n
d.      Allegation of the candidates may be made to RRBs\/Public Sector
\nBanks in order of merit list already drawn by the RSRBs and only those
\ncandidates who are coming in that merit list and are eligible for public
\nsector Banks will be allocated to these Banks.\n<\/p>\n
2. In addition to the above, BSRBs may also explore the possibility of
\nabsorbing the remaining unabsorbed candidates in the RRBs in the adjoining
\nStates through RSRBs of these States, after obtaining option from the
\nunabsorbed candidates in this regard.”\n<\/p>\n
The respondents in the counter affidavit filed by them has stated that the
\nletter of 31.03.1993 has not been annexed to the special leave petitions.
\nThe statement is not correct. The other letter has been annexed as
\nAnnexure-J and is at page 77 of the paper-book. The letter of 31.03.1993
\nmakes it very clear that the cause of action for the writ petitioners is
\nagainst the BSRB and not against the appellant-Bank.\n<\/p>\n
The Government of India Circular dated 31.3.1993, which has been extended
\nto the present case by order dated 12.1.1996 of this Court, pre-supposes
\nthat there can be revision of indent even before declaration of results and
\neven after declaration of results and alternative machanism has been laid
\ndown, Neither the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 nor the Regional Rural
\nBanks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules,
\n1988, restricts pruning and\/or mandates that of salectee should be
\nappointed. No rule has been placed.\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute the legal position. His
\ncontention was based on the letter of the BSRB dated 28.11.1988 and he
\nstated that Mr. Surya Prasad Rath has been appointed whereas those above
\nhim have not been appointed. The communication dated 28.11.1988 at page 130
\nhas to be read with the reply of the Bank (at page 109 of the paper book)
\nwhere the Bank’s query was about the merit list. Further one thing that is
\nclear that selection is qua Bank. No factual foundation was laid to show
\nthat within the Bank a lower selectee was preferred. We have already
\nnoticed though the advertisement was published in the newspapers and the
\nexaminations were held thereafter on 20.03.1988, the Bank had communicated
\nthe revised indent by 23.08.1988 well ahead of the intimation of selection
\nand publication of results. The Bank had bona fide and genuine reasons for
\npruning down the indent. If the Banks are forced to accommodate Officers
\nand Field Supervisors more than their required indent, it will have a
\ncrippling effect on the Bank and public interest will stand seriously
\nprejudiced as several employees will have to be unnecessarily retained and
\npublic money will have to be expended on them. When public interest
\ncompetes with private interest, the private interest will have to give way
\nto public interest. In this case, asking the appellent-Bank to accommodate
\nas directed by the the BSRB would cause loss to public revenue. It has been
\nclearly stated in the counter affidavit filed by the Bank before the High
\nCourt in the writ petition that on account of various factors including
\nliquidity crisis, ban order for opening new branches and on account of
\nfinancial burden incurred on account of implementation of Agricultural
\nRural Debt Relief Scheme and the award given by the National Industrial,
\nTribunal, the Bank had decided not to fill up the posts though at the time
\nof advertisement indents had been given. Thus, it is seen that the decision
\nof the Bank not to fill up posts was due to financial crisis. Therefore, no
\ndirection can be given to issue appointment letters to the respondents\/writ
\npetitioners though they have come out successful in the selection process.\n<\/p>\n
The aforesaid being the decision, we would hold that the respondents\/ writ
\npetitioners had not acquired any indefeasible right and the decision not to
\nfill up all the vacancies had been taken bona fide reasons and directions
\nas sought for by the respondent cannot, therefore, be issued.\n<\/p>\n
Today the position is that the appellant-Bank has filed an affidavit
\nsetting out how it has implemented the order of this Court dated 12.1.1996.
\nAs averred in para 4 therein, there is no vacancy in any cadre in the Bank.
\nIn the Government of India revised guidelines the appellant-Bank has been
\nidentified as having surplus manpower. The accumulated loss today is in the
\nrange of 39.65 crores.\n<\/p>\n
Pursuant to the order of this Court, three of the respondents have been
\nadmittedly appointed. They are :\n<\/p>\n
(a)     Mr. Pallab Kumar Das (OJC No. 1866)\n\n(b)     Mr. Alekha Prasad Behera (OJC No. 2981)\n\n(c)     Mr. Tridip Kumar Das (OJC No. 5052)\n\n<\/pre>\n
Today 15 years have passed after the advertisement and seven years after
\nthe order of this Court dated 12.1.1996. In view of the settled legal
\nposition, the respondents do not have any indefeasible right.\n<\/p>\n
However, with a view to do justice between the parties and balance the
\nequities, we issue the following directions :\n<\/p>\n
(a)  If, however, the business of the Bank would require filling up of more
\nvacancies and if he respondents\/writ petitioners turn would come as per the
\nmerit list, we have no doubt that the concerned respondents\/writ
\npetitioners would be absorbed in service as per rules.\n<\/p>\n
(b)  The appointment shall be made on the basis of merit\/select list if
\nthere are vacancies in any cadre.\n<\/p>\n
(c)  The select list would remain in force for two years from now.\n<\/p>\n
(d)  The appellant-Bank, we hope, will consider the question of relaxation
\nof age bar in suitable cases so as to minimize their hardship.\n<\/p>\n
We are unable to subscribe to the opinion expressed by the Full Bench and
\nthe Division Bench of the Orissa High Court impugned in these appeals for
\nthe reasons stated in paragraphs supra.\n<\/p>\n
The judgment dated 14.9.1993 of the Full Bench and of the judgment dated
\n26.9.1994 of the Division Bench of the High Court hereby are set aside and
\nthe appeals filed by the appellant-Bank stand allowed. However, there will
\nbe no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Baitarani Gramiya Bank vs Pallab Kumar And Ors on 10 September, 2003 Bench: M.B. Shah, Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2050-2052 of 1996 PETITIONER: BAITARANI GRAMIYA BANK RESPONDENT: PALLAB KUMAR AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/09\/2003 BENCH: M.B. SHAH & DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 2003 Sjupp(3) SCR 571 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-83238","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBaitarani Gramiya Bank vs Pallab Kumar And Ors on 10 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baitarani-gramiya-bank-vs-pallab-kumar-and-ors-on-10-september-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Baitarani Gramiya Bank vs Pallab Kumar And Ors on 10 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baitarani-gramiya-bank-vs-pallab-kumar-and-ors-on-10-september-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-19T18:18:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"33 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baitarani-gramiya-bank-vs-pallab-kumar-and-ors-on-10-september-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baitarani-gramiya-bank-vs-pallab-kumar-and-ors-on-10-september-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Baitarani Gramiya Bank vs Pallab Kumar And Ors on 10 September, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-19T18:18:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baitarani-gramiya-bank-vs-pallab-kumar-and-ors-on-10-september-2003\"},\"wordCount\":6559,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baitarani-gramiya-bank-vs-pallab-kumar-and-ors-on-10-september-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baitarani-gramiya-bank-vs-pallab-kumar-and-ors-on-10-september-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baitarani-gramiya-bank-vs-pallab-kumar-and-ors-on-10-september-2003\",\"name\":\"Baitarani Gramiya Bank vs Pallab Kumar And Ors on 10 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-19T18:18:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baitarani-gramiya-bank-vs-pallab-kumar-and-ors-on-10-september-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baitarani-gramiya-bank-vs-pallab-kumar-and-ors-on-10-september-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baitarani-gramiya-bank-vs-pallab-kumar-and-ors-on-10-september-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Baitarani Gramiya Bank vs Pallab Kumar And Ors on 10 September, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Baitarani Gramiya Bank vs Pallab Kumar And Ors on 10 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baitarani-gramiya-bank-vs-pallab-kumar-and-ors-on-10-september-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Baitarani Gramiya Bank vs Pallab Kumar And Ors on 10 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baitarani-gramiya-bank-vs-pallab-kumar-and-ors-on-10-september-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-19T18:18:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"33 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baitarani-gramiya-bank-vs-pallab-kumar-and-ors-on-10-september-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baitarani-gramiya-bank-vs-pallab-kumar-and-ors-on-10-september-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Baitarani Gramiya Bank vs Pallab Kumar And Ors on 10 September, 2003","datePublished":"2003-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-19T18:18:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baitarani-gramiya-bank-vs-pallab-kumar-and-ors-on-10-september-2003"},"wordCount":6559,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baitarani-gramiya-bank-vs-pallab-kumar-and-ors-on-10-september-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baitarani-gramiya-bank-vs-pallab-kumar-and-ors-on-10-september-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baitarani-gramiya-bank-vs-pallab-kumar-and-ors-on-10-september-2003","name":"Baitarani Gramiya Bank vs Pallab Kumar And Ors on 10 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-19T18:18:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baitarani-gramiya-bank-vs-pallab-kumar-and-ors-on-10-september-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baitarani-gramiya-bank-vs-pallab-kumar-and-ors-on-10-september-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baitarani-gramiya-bank-vs-pallab-kumar-and-ors-on-10-september-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Baitarani Gramiya Bank vs Pallab Kumar And Ors on 10 September, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83238","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=83238"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83238\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=83238"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=83238"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=83238"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}