campus recruitment / Interview method for public sector organization is declared illegal by Bombay High court

 For the aforesaid reasons, the petition ought to succeed at least
to the extent of declaring the stated recruitment policy of the respondent
– Bank dated 5.3.2009 as also the Circular issued by the Government of
India dated 22.2.2005, which provides for recruitment of officers in the
public sector banks against “permanent vacancies” on “regular basis” by
resorting to campus recruitment / Interview method and not by inviting
applications from public at large by issuing public advertisement, being
illegal and unconstitutional. The respondents are directed to forbear
from making any appointment against the permanent vacancies on
regular basis by resorting to campus recruitment/Interview mechanism
hereafter and if such appointment is made, the same will be non-est in
law.

Bombay High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION 
WRIT PETITION (LODG.) NO.2825 OF 2012
1. Sonali Pramod Dhawde )

Vs.
1. Central Bank of India )

 CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR &
MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.
 DATED: APRIL 1, 2013



1. Rule. Respondents waive notice through their respective
Counsel.
2. Rule returnable forthwith, by consent. Heard Counsel appearing
for the parties, including the interventionists in the companion petition,
which has been disposed of today by a separate order. 
3. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
primarily, challenges the recruitment policy of the respondent–Bank
dated 5.3.2009 – of permitting filling of vacancies in Officers cadre
earmarked for direct recruits through campus interview or campus
recruitment process. The petitioners assert that they possess requisite
qualifications and are eligible to be appointed against the vacant posts
in the respondent – Bank, as per its recruitment policy dated 5.3.2009.
4. The petitioners have filed this petition on 26.11.2012, after
becoming aware about the pendency of other petitions in this Court
challenging the selfsame recruitment policy that allows filling of
vacancies earmarked for direct recruits through campus interview being
sqp /vss 2 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:50 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
contrary to the settled legal position expounded by the Constitution
Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka
vs. Uma Devi (3)1
. Since the petitioners were advised that the outcome
of the pending Writ Petitions may affect the rights of the petitioners and
similarly placed persons, who had legitimate expectation to compete for
getting employment in the respondent – Bank, they decided to file the
present petition, praying for the following substantive reliefs:
“(a) …
(b) For a writ or an order in the nature of a writ directing
the Respondents to immediately and forthwith strictly
adhere and comply with the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi and also the
mandatory requirement of complying with the provisions laid
down under the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory
Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 and Rules 1960 framed
therein in relation to any recruitment done or proposed to be
done hereinafter.
(c) For a writ or an order in the nature of a writ directing
the Respondents to immediately and forthwith restrain and
refrain themselves from indulging in campus recruitment
through selected campuses and selected institutes for the
purpose of recruitment of candidates to its management
positions by declaring such mode of recruitment envisaged
in the recruitment policy dated 5.3.2009 by the Central Bank
of India as being bad and illegal under the law.
For the writ or an order in the nature of a writ directing the
Respondents to immediately and forthwith restrain and
refrain the Government of India from allowing the various
public sector banks to whom circular / directive dated
19.9.2001 and / or 22.2.2005 were issued from indulging in
recruitment through campuses on the ground of autonomy
1 (2006) 4 SCC 1
sqp /vss 3 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:50 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
given to them by declaring the said circulars/directives bad
and illegal to the limited extent of recruitment through
campus.
(e) For a writ or an order in the nature of a writ directing
the Respondents to immediately and forthwith
cancel/terminate the various appointments made through
campus recruitment as per recruitment policy dated
5.3.2009 and Board approval dated 28.3.2009 and upon
such cancellation/termination complete the entire process of
recruitment in accordance with the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi and the
provisions of The Employment Exchanges (Compulsory
Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 and Rules 1960 framed
therein. 
(f) For a writ or an order in the nature of a writ directing
prosecution and punishment of the concerned officials of the
Respondent No.1 and/or 2 for violating the provisions of the
Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of
Vacancies) Act, 1959 and Rules 1960 framed therein for not
complying with the provisions of the aforesaid Act and Rules
for the last many years and more particularly from the year
2009 till date when campus recruitment was done while
recruiting candidates in management positions.
….........”
5. According to the petitioners, the method of campus interview
resorted to by the respondent – Bank, for filling vacancies of officers of
the respondent – Bank earmarked for direct recruits, was in the teeth of
the rights guaranteed to all the citizens under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of
the Constitution of India – no matter the insignificant number or
percentage of such posts to be filled in in that manner. The thrust of the
challenge rests on the exposition of the Apex Court in Uma Devi's case
(supra). According to the petitioners, the appointment to be made by the
sqp /vss 4 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:50 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
respondent – Bank, which is, admittedly, an instrumentality of the State,
was in the nature of back-door public employment, of its management
recruits. 
6. This petition is resisted by the respondent – Bank by filing affidavit
of Rajkiran Rai G., General Manager, HRD dated 3.12.2012. The
respondent – Bank has also relied on the two affidavits filed before this
Court, in the companion Writ Petition (L) No.1008 of 2012, which was
heard alongwith the present petition, raising overlapping issues. As
regards these petitioners, the respondent – Bank has raised serious
objection about their locus. According to the respondent – Bank, the
petitioners have failed to substantiate that all or anyone of them
possesses the requisite qualification and eligibility criterion for
appointment in Middle Management (Grade II) (Main Stream). Further,
inspite of being called upon to furnish such information, the petitioners
have failed to do so. Moreover, this petition has been filed only after
realising that the companion petition would fail. For that reason alone,
the petition should be dismissed. According to the respondent – Bank,
the recruitment process through campus interview is a well known
method and is permitted as per its recruitment and promotion policy.
That policy has been evolved and articulated on the basis of the
directives issued by Respondent No.2 - Union of India, with a view to
sqp /vss 5 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:50 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
grant complete autonomy to the Public Sector Banks (`PSBs', for short)
as also to address the Human Resources (`HR', for short) initiatives to
be taken by those banks. The said policy has been duly approved by
the Board of Directors of the respondent – Bank and is being
implemented since year 2009. It is submitted that this petition, filed in
the year 2012, to challenge that policy, therefore, suffers from laches
and delay. Further, on the basis of the said policy, the respondent –
Bank has already recruited a total of 438 officers through campus
interview, as against the intake of 3567 officers through advertisements,
between years 2009 – 2010 to 2011 – 2013. In terms of percentage, it
does not exceed 12.27% of the total appointments made by the
respondent - Bank. Further, Campus Selection is a well known
commercial practice. It facilitates in identifying and selecting the best
talent, who would provide new direction to the business policy of the
organisation because of their superior knowledge about the latest
technology and innovative business techniques and methods.
Considering the manifold increase in the activities of the PSBs, who are
constantly on the competing mode by reducing their response time in
meeting the diversified needs of the customers, a renewed approach of
peoples systems and HR approach had become inevitable. For that,
campus recruitment is the only way forward and moreso, because
several other public sector undertakings were already following that
sqp /vss 6 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:50 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
method of recruitment for quite some time. The selection through
campus recruitment is a separate mechanism and is incomparable with
the method of recruitment by advertisements. The petitioners, having
completed their education and as they are not pursuing any course in
any Institution, cannot complain about discrimination. Moreover,
campus recruitment is the need of the contemporary business
techniques, policies and initiatives for which reason, it cannot be said to
be unreasonable. The mechanism provided for campus recruitment is
not only transparent and fair but also ensures objectivity. In that, an
independent committee of experts is appointed to consider the
competing claims of candidates being considered through campus
interview process and the best amongst them, is chosen for being
absorbed in services upon completion of the training period. The said
process is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory qua the petitioners herein
and similarly placed persons, but being the need of the hour, has
become imperative. That the grievance of the petitioners is not about
any malafide exercise of power in formulation of the recruitment policy
nor about the procedure followed by the respondent – Bank for
appointment through the campus interview as per that policy. As a
result, the challenge to the recruitment policy is completely devoid of
merits and moreso, at the instance of the petitioners, who cannot claim
to be on par with the class of candidates considered in campus
sqp /vss 7 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:50 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
interview process. The respondent – Bank has also highlighted the
procedure followed for identifying the colleges / institutions, from which
the candidates are considered and interviewed. Even that procedure, it
is stated is transparent and objective. Any institution desirous of being
empanelled by the respondent – Bank for campus interview process is
free to apply and that application is scrutinised by the experts'
committee. These are the broad points on the basis of which the
respondent – Bank has opposed granting of any relief to the petitioners.
7. After having perused the pleadings and the accompanying
documents and also considering the oral arguments, the foremost
question that needs to be considered is about the locus of the
petitioners. No doubt, the petitioners have vaguely stated in the petition
that they possess educational qualification and are eligible for
employment with the respondent – Bank as per the recruitment policy
dated 5.3.2009 and that inspite of being called upon by the respondent
– Bank to substantiate the same by furnishing inspection of the relevant
documents, have failed to do so. The respondent – Bank had insisted in
writing for inspection because, as per the Bank's recruitment policy for
appointment in Middle Management (Grade II) (Main Stream), the
qualification required is first class Post Graduate degree or first class
Graduate or any equivalent qualification recognised as such by the
sqp /vss 8 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:50 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
Government of India and minimum second class MBA. The Graduate or
the Post Graduate degree must be from a University recognised by the
UGC and the MBA degree should be from a recognised Institute /
University. As aforesaid, the petitioners have failed to clearly assert that
they possess this qualification, but have stated on affidavit that they
possess requisite qualification and thus are eligible for employment in
the respondent – Bank. Merely because the petitioners' Advocate
expressed inability to produce the Degree Certificates due to paucity of
time or that it were not produced at least during arguments, in our
opinion, cannot be the basis to throw out this petition at the threshold.
The petitioners have justly relied on the exposition of the Constitution
Bench of the Apex Court in the case of D.C.Wadhwa (Dr.) vs. State of
Bihar2
. In paragraph 3, the Court has observed thus:
“3. ….......... The rule of law constitutes the core of our
Constitution and it is the essence of the rule of law that the
exercise of the power by the State whether it be the
legislature or the executive or any other authority should
be within the constitutional limitations and if any practice is
adopted by the executive which is in flagrant and
systematic violation of its constitutional limitations,
Petitioner 1 as a member of the public would have
sufficient interest to challenge such practice by filing a writ
petition and it would be the constitutional duty of this Court
to entertain the writ petition and adjudicate upon the
validity of such practice ............”
(emphasis supplied)
2 (1987) 1 SCC 378
sqp /vss 9 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:50 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
Accordingly, the preliminary objection under consideration is
negatived. 
8. As regards the next preliminary objection regarding non-joinder of
necessary parties, even this objection is devoid of merits. Inasmuch as,
the petitioners are not asking for termination of the officers already
employed by the respondent – Bank through campus recruitment
process in the past. The petitioners are essentially praying for quashing
of the recruitment policy allowing appointment by campus recruitment
method as formulated by the respondent – Bank dated 5.3.2009, being
unconstitutional, illegal and against the fundamental rights enshrined in
Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. As a consequence of
this declaration, direction is sought against the respondents to
henceforth forbear from resorting to campus recruitment method for
filling up vacancies of officers in the respondent – Bank earmarked for
the direct recruits, from amongst the students of the selected
Institutes/Colleges. In other words, the petitioners are claiming relief of
general nature against the State and not against individual party. In that
case, non-joinder of selected candidates is not fatal. (See GM, South
Central Railway v. A.V.R. Siddhanti3
). Further, the candidates who are
“yet to be appointed” against the public posts of officers or “absorbed in
3 (1994) 4 SCC 335)
sqp /vss 10 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:50 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
services” of the respondent – Bank, can and will have no vested right to
claim that they must be appointed dehors the constitutional scheme. In
either case, joining of such persons as party respondents to the present
proceedings being necessary or proper parties, does not commend
to us. 
9. It is indisputable that the respondent – Bank has been restrained
by this Court from absorbing any of the employees selected in campus
interview in terms of order dated 26.6.2012. As aforesaid, the
petitioners are not claiming any reliefs or direction against the
respondent – Bank to terminate the services of officers who have
already been appointed and absorbed prior to 26.6.2012. In this view of
the matter, reliance placed by the respondent – Bank on the decision in
the case of Prabhod Verma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh4
, is inapposite.
In that case, the persons whose services were terminated by the State
Authorities made grievance before the Apex Court that since they were
already in service, the Writ Petition filed by the Association without the
reserve pool teachers being made respondents to the Writ Petition or at
least in representative capacity, the Writ Petition suffered from nonjoinder of parties. Further, in that case, the petitioners refused to join
those persons, who were necessary and proper parties and inspite of
4 AIR 1985 SC 167 
sqp /vss 11 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:50 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
that, the Writ Petition filed by the Sangh was entertained and orders
passed, which affected those persons who were not before the Court.
10. The next objection taken by the respondent – Bank, is that, the
petitioners have abused the process of Court. In that, this petition has
been filed after several hearings of Writ Petition (Lodging) No.1008 of
2012 and moreso, because the petitioners in that petition realised that
they had no locus standi to pursue the grievance made by them. Indeed,
the companion Writ Petition was filed in April, 2012 and was heard on
different dates. However, that does not mean that the petitioners, who
otherwise claim to possess requisite qualifications, as per the
recruitment policy, can be denuded of pursuing the challenge in the
present petition. Moreso, when the grievance is not about some
irregularity committed by the State Authorities in the matter of public
employment, but raising issues which go to the root of authority of the
State and Instrumentalities of the State to adopt policy, which is in the
teeth of the rights guaranteed to the citizens of India under Part III of the
Constitution of India. We are not impressed by the objection under
consideration, which, in our opinion, if accepted, would be taking a
hyper technical view.
sqp /vss 12 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:50 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
11. Reverting to the preliminary objection that this petition suffers
from laches because the policy regarding recruitment through campus
interview is in place since year 2009 and secondly, that this petition has
been filed only to overcome the deficiencies noticed in the companion
writ petition during the arguments, none of these objections commend to
us. Firstly, the fact that this petition, filed in the year 2012, takes
exception to the policy formulated in the year 2009. The fact that the
said policy has been implemented since then, does not and cannot
denude the petitioners of their remedy to complain about the infraction
of their rights guaranteed by the Constitution. There is nothing on
record to indicate that the decision to adopt procedure of recruitment
through campus interview to fill in the vacancies earmarked for direct
recruits, which was given effect to since 2009, was in public domain.
The petitioners herein cannot be expected to have access to that
information. The petitioners on affidavit have stated that they got
knowledge about the same only after reading news item regarding
pendency of other petitions in this Court, which appeared in the local
newspaper very recently. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of
this statement. Even otherwise, the argument of laches because of
implementation of the policy for last around 3 years, is too
hypertechnical argument to throw out the petition at the threshold. 
sqp /vss 13 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:50 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
12. Similarly, the argument that this petition has been filed only to
cover up the deficiencies noticed in the companion writ petition during
the arguments, also does not commend to us. Inasmuch as, the
petitioners have invoked remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, in their own rights and complaining of infraction of their
fundamental rights due to denial of equal opportunity in the matter of
public employment. Accordingly, the preliminary objection under
consideration is devoid of merits. 
13. Reverting to the principal issue, we may accept the stand of the
respondents, for the sake of argument, that the process of appointment
through campus recruitment is a distinct mechanism and class by itself.
It would then follow that the petitioners who are no more pursuing
education in any college/institution, much less, the specified
colleges/institutions from where the students are interviewed for campus
recruitment, cannot raise any issue of discrimination. However, in our
opinion, that does not preclude the petitioners and similarly placed
persons from questioning the policy of the respondent-bank, which
permits such recruitment method against public posts, being
impermissible and ultra vires the constitutional scheme. For, it impinges
upon the fundamental rights of persons who are otherwise qualified,
sqp /vss 14 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:50 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
eligible and suitable for being appointed in the selection process for
direct recruits through advertisements – no matter the insignificant
percentage of appointments made through campus interview, as in this
case 12.27% of the total intake of officers of the respondent bank during
the relevant period. 
14. The moot question is: Does the constitutional scheme allows
filling of vacancies of direct recruits through “any other method” than by
issuing public advertisements and by giving wide publicity to invite
applications from “all” the qualified and eligible candidates to compete
for being appointed against such vacancies? If this question is
answered in the negative, any amount of explanation given by the
respondent – bank for taking recourse to the method of campus
interview, will be of no avail. It is well established position that neither
the Parliament nor the State Legislature in this Country can transgress
the basic feature of the Constitution, namely, the principle of equality
enshrined in Article 14 of which Article 16(1) of the Constitution is a
facet, as restated in paragraph 65 of Indira Sawhney vs. Union of
India5
. Understood thus, the respondent bank cannot be permitted to
defend its action merely because it has formulated such recruitment
policy in conformity with the directives issued by the Government of
5 (2000) 1 SCC 168
sqp /vss 15 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:50 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
India to grant autonomy to PSBs. Neither such direction of Government
of India nor the policy formulated by the respondent – Bank, which is a
public sector bank and therefore an instrumentality of the State, will be
of any avail or a tangible ground to uphold the impugned policy, if the
Parliament or the State Legislature is not competent to legislate on that
subject. 
15. The question as to how appointments against public posts should
be made is no more res integra. The Constitution Bench of the Apex
Court in Umadevi (3) (supra), after adverting to the gamut of
authorities, has, in no uncertain terms, restated the legal position that
the regular process of recruitment or appointment has to be resorted to,
when regular vacancies in public posts, at a particular time, are to be
filled up and the filling up of those vacancies cannot be done in a
haphazard manner or based on “patronage” or “other considerations”.
Regular appointment must be the rule. Indeed, this decision deals with
the problem posed at the instance of the State, in relation to the
directions given by the High Court concerning the appointment of
temporary, contractual, casual or daily-wages workers. However, the
dicta in this decision is about the mandate of the Constitutional
Scheme, in making appointments against public posts. The Court has
noted that the guarantee of equality in the matter of employment is an
sqp /vss 16 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:50 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
inviolable right and the State as an employer – and a model employer –
is subjected to the constitutional limitations and cannot exercise its
powers arbitrarily. The only way to effectuate the guarantee of equality
of opportunity to public employment, is, to follow the procedure which
is fair and would not jettison the scheme of public employment
guaranteed by the Constitution. That can be done only by providing
“opportunity to all” qualified, eligible and suitable candidates “to compete
for public employment”, by inviting applications from them “through
advertisement” and holding of selection by a body of experts or a
specially constituted committee whose members are fair and impartial
through a written examination or interview or some other rational criteria
for judging the inter se merit of the candidates who have applied in
response to the advertisement made. The Constitution Bench has
reaffirmed that the regular appointment to a post under the State or
Union cannot be made “without issuing advertisement”, inviting
applications from eligible candidates and without holding a proper
selection where all eligible candidates get a fair chance to compete.
The petitioners have stoutly placed reliance on the exposition in
paragraphs 2 to 4, 6, 11, 13, 26, 28, 40 to 43, 45, 47, 50 and 51 of
Umadevi's case (supra). We deem it apposite to extract relevant
portions from those paragraphs, being directly on the matter in issue.
The same are as follows:
sqp /vss 17 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:50 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
“2. Public employment in a sovereign socialist
secular democratic republic, has to be as set down by
the Constitution and the laws made thereunder. Our
constitutional scheme envisages employment by the
Government and its instrumentalities on the basis of
a procedure established in that behalf. Equality of
opportunity is the hallmark, and the Constitution has
provided also for affirmative action to ensure that
unequals are not treated as equals. Thus, any public
employment has to be in terms of the constitutional
scheme. 
3. A sovereign Government, considering the
economic situation in the country and the work to be
got done, is not precluded from making temporary
appointments or engaging workers on daily
wages....... 
….. But, a regular process of recruitment or
appointment has to be resorted to, when regular
vacancies in posts, at a particular point of time, are to
be filled up and the filling up of those vacancies
cannot be done in a haphazard manner or based on
patronage or other considerations. Regular
appointment must be the rule.
4. …............... The Union, the States, their
departments and instrumentalities have resorted to
irregular appointments, especially in the lower rungs
of the service, without reference to the duty to ensure
a proper appointment procedure through the Public
Service Commission or otherwise as per the rules
adopted and to permit these irregular appointees or
those appointed on contract or on daily wages, to
continue year after year, thus, keeping out those who
are qualified to apply for the post concerned and
depriving them of an opportunity to compete for the
post. …..................................
6. The power of a State as an employer is more
limited than that of a private employer inasmuch as it
is subjected to constitutional limitations and cannot
be exercised arbitrarily (See Basu's Shorter
Constitution of India). …........ 
…...............….. The State is meant to
sqp /vss 18 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:50 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
be a model employer. The Employment Exchanges
(Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 was
enacted to ensure equal opportunity for employment
seekers. Though this Act may not oblige an employer
to employ only those persons who have been
sponsored by employment exchanges, it places an
obligation on the employer to notify the vacancies
that may arise in the various departments and for
filling up of those vacancies, based on a procedure.
…............. 
11. In addition to the equality clause represented by
Article 14 of the Constitution, Article 16 has
specifically provided for equality of opportunity in
matters of public employment. ….......... 
….........In view of the interpretation placed on Article
12 of the Constitution by this Court, obviously, these
principles also govern the instrumentalities that come
within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution.
….................... 
….............. As a part of the affirmative action
recognized by Article 16 of the Constitution, Article
335 provides for special consideration in the matter of
claims of the members of the scheduled castes and
scheduled tribes for employment. ….............
…... The Constitution does not envisage any
employment outside this constitutional scheme and
without following the requirements set down therein.
13. ….............. Such considerations can have only
a limited role to play, when every qualified citizen has
a right to apply for appointment, the adoption of the
concept of rule of law and the scheme of the
Constitution for appointment to posts. It cannot also
be forgotten that it is not the role of courts to ignore,
encourage or approve appointments made or
engagements given outside the constitutional
scheme. In effect, orders based on such sentiments
or approach would result in perpetuating illegalities
and in the jettisoning of the scheme of public
employment adopted by us while adopting the
Constitution. The approving of such acts also results
in depriving many of their opportunity to compete for
public employment. …..... 
26. …................ This Court, in our view, is bound
to insist on the State making regular and proper
recruitments and is bound not to encourage or shut
sqp /vss 19 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:50 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
its eyes to the persistent transgression of the rules of
regular recruitment. …............. 
38. In Union Public Service Commission v. Girish
Jayanti Lal Vaghela, (2006) 2 SCC 482, this Court
answered the question, who was a government
servant and stated: (SCC p.490, para 12)
“12. Article 16 which finds place in Part III of
the Constitution relating to fundamental rights
provides that there shall be equality of
opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to
employment or appointment to any office under
the State. The main object of Article 16 is to
create a constitutional right to equality of
opportunity and employment in public offices.
The words "employment" or "appointment"
cover not merely the initial appointment but also
other attributes of service like promotion and
age of superannuation etc. The appointment
to any post under the State can only be
made after a proper advertisement has been
made inviting applications from eligible
candidates and holding of selection by a
body of experts or a specially constituted
committee whose members are fair and
impartial through a written examination or
interview or some other rational criteria for
judging the inter se merit of candidates who
have applied in response to the
advertisement made. A regular appointment
to a post under the State or Union cannot be
made without issuing advertisement in the
prescribed manner which may in some
cases include inviting applications from the
employment exchange where eligible
candidates get their names registered. Any
regular appointment made on a post under
the State or Union without issuing
advertisement inviting applications from
eligible candidates and without holding a
proper selection where all eligible
candidates get a fair chance to compete
would violate the guarantee enshrined under
Article 16 of the Constitution (see
B.S.Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute, AIR
1984 SC 363.”
sqp /vss 20 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:50 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
40. At this stage, it is relevant to notice two aspects.
In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4
SCC 225, this Court held that Article 14, and Article
16, which was described as a facet of Article 14, is
part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India.
The position emerging from Kesavananada Bharati,
was summed up by Jagannatha Rao, J., speaking for
a Bench of three Judges in Indira Sawhney v. Union
of India, (2000) 1 SCC 168. That decision also
reiterated how neither the Parliament nor the
Legislature could transgress the basic feature of the
Constitution, namely, the principle of equality
enshrined in Article 14 of which Article 16(1) is a
facet. This Court stated: (Indira Sawhney case, SCC
p.202, paras 64-65)
“64. The preamble to the Constitution of
India emphasises the principle of equality as
basic to our constitution. In Keshavananda
Bharati v. State of Kerala, it was ruled that even
constitutional amendments which offended the
basic structure of the Constitution would be ultra
vires the basic structure. Sikri, CJ. laid stress on
the basic features enumerated in the preamble
to the Constitution and said that there were
other basic features too which could be
gathered from the Constitutional scheme (para
506-A of SCC). Equality was one of the basic
features referred to in the Preamble to our
Constitution. Shelat and Grover, JJ. also
referred to the basic rights referred to in the
Preamble. They specifically referred to equality
(paras 520 and 535-A of SCC). Hegde & Shelat,
JJ. also referred to the Preamble (paras 648,
652). Ray, J. (as he then was) also did so (para
886). Jaganmohan Reddy, J. too referred to the
Preamble and the equality doctrine (para 1159).
Khanna, J. accepted this position (para 1471).
Mathew, J. referred to equality as a basic
feature (para 1621). Dwivedi, J. (paras 1882,
1883) and Chandrachud, J.(as he then was)
(see para 2086) accepted this position.
65. What we mean to say is that
Parliament and the legislature in this Country
cannot transgress the basic feature of the
Constitution, namely, the principle of equality
sqp /vss 21 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:50 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
enshrined in Article 14 of which Article 16(1) is a
facet.”
41. In the earlier decision in Indra Sawhney v. Union
of India, B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. speaking for the
majority, while acknowledging that equality and equal
opportunity is a basic feature of our Constitution, has
explained the exultant (sic exalted) position of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution in the scheme of things.
His Lordship stated : (SCC pp.633-634, paras 644-
45)
“644[6]. The significance attached by the
founding fathers to the right to equality is
evident not only from the fact that they
employed both the expressions 'equality before
the law' and 'equal protection of the laws' in
Article 14 but proceeded further to state the
same rule in positive and affirmative terms in
Articles 15 to 18....
645[7]. Inasmuch as public employment
always gave a certain status and power --- it
has always been the repository of State power
---besides the means of livelihood, special care
was taken to declare equality of opportunity in
the matter of public employment by Article 16.
Clause (1), expressly declares that in the matter
of public employment or appointment to any
office under the state, citizens of this country
shall have equal opportunity while clause (2)
declares that no citizen shall be discriminated in
the said matter on the grounds only of religion,
race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth,
residence or any of them. At the same time,
care was taken to, declare in clause (4) that
nothing in the said Article shall prevent the state
from making any provision for reservation of
appointments or posts in favour of any
backward class of citizen which in the opinion of
the state, is not adequately represented in the
services under the state... (See paras 6 and 7 in
SCR pp.544 and 545.)
These binding decisions are clear imperatives that
adherence to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is
a must in the process of public employment.
sqp /vss 22 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:50 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
42. …......... 
43.Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of
equality in public employment is a basic feature of our
Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of
our Constitution, a Court would certainly be disabled
from passing an order upholding a violation of Article
14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to
comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with
Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent
with the scheme for public employment, this Court
while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that
unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant
rules and after a proper competition among qualified
persons, the same would not confer any right on the
appointee. …...............…......
….... The courts must be careful in ensuring that they
do not interfere unduly with the economic
arrangement of its affairs by the State or its
instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments
to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and
statutory mandates.
45. …............ 
47. …............. 
50. It is argued that in a country like India where
there is so much poverty and unemployment and
there is no equality of bargaining power, the action of
the State in not making the employees permanent,
would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. But
the very argument indicates that there are so many
waiting for employment and an equal opportunity for
competing for employment and it is in that context
that the Constitution as one of its basic features, has
included Articles 14, 16 and 309 so as to ensure that
public employment is given only in a fair and
equitable manner by giving all those who are
qualified, an opportunity to seek employment. In the
guise of upholding rights under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, a set of persons cannot be
preferred over a vast majority of people waiting for an
opportunity to compete for State employment.
…............... 
51. The argument that the right to life protected by
Article 21 of the Constitution of India would include
the right to employment cannot also be accepted at
sqp /vss 23 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:50 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
this juncture. The law is dynamic and our Constitution
is a living document. May be at some future point of
time, the right to employment can also be brought in
under the concept of right to life or even included as a
fundamental right. The new statute is perhaps a
beginning. As things now stand, the acceptance of
such a plea at the instance of the employees before
us would lead to the consequence of depriving a large
number of other aspirants of an opportunity to
compete for the post or employment. Their right to
employment, if it is a part of right to life, would stand
denuded by the preferring of those who have got in
casually or those who have come through the back
door. The obligation cast on the State under Article
39(a) of the Constitution of India is to ensure that all
citizens equally have the right to adequate means of
livelihood. It will be more consistent with that policy if
the courts recognize that an appointment to a post in
government service or in the service of its
instrumentalities, can only be by way of a proper
selection in the manner recognized by the relevant
legislation in the context of the relevant provisions of
the Constitution. In the name of individualizing justice,
it is also not possible to shut our eyes to the
constitutional scheme and the right of the numerous
as against the few who are before the court. The
Directive Principles of State Policy have also to be
reconciled with the rights available to the citizen
under Part III of the Constitution and the obligation of
the State to one and all and not to a particular group
of citizens. We, therefore, overrule the argument
based on Article 21 of the Constitution. 
(emphasis supplied).
16. The argument of the respondents that, this decision is not an
authority on the proposition that the public posts must necessarily be
filled up “only through public advertisements”, will have to be stated to
be rejected. Inasmuch as even though the Apex Court was considering
the issue in the context of daily wagers/temporary employees, after
adverting to the gamut of reported cases, it has reaffirmed the mandate
sqp /vss 24 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:50 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It has noticed that Article 14 is
a genus while Article 16 is one of its species. 
17. It may be useful to advert to the case of E.P.Royappa vs. State
of Tamil Nadu & Anr,
6 wherein the Constitution Bench of the Apex
Court, in paragraph 85 thereof, observed thus:
“85. The last two grounds of challenge may be taken
up together for consideration. Though we have
formulated the third ground of challenge as a distinct
and separate ground, it is really in substance and
effect merely an aspect of the second ground based
on violation of Articles 14 and 16. Article 16 embodies
the fundamental guarantee that there shall be equality
of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to
employment or appointment to any office under the
State. Though enacted as a distinct and independent
fundamental right because of its great importance as
a principle ensuring equality of opportunity in public
employment which is so vital to the building up of the
new classless egalitarian society envisaged in the
Constitution, Article 16 is only an instance of the
application of the concept of equality enshrined in
Article 14. In other words, Article 14 is the genus
while Article 16 is a species, Article 16 gives effect to
the doctrine or equality in all matters relating to public
employment. The basic principle which, therefore,
informs both Articles 14 and 16 is equality and
inhibition against discrimination. Now, what is the
content and reach of this great equalising principle? It
is a founding faith, to use the words of Bose, J., "a
way of life", and it must not be subjected to a narrow
pedantic or lexicographic approach. We cannot
countenance any attempt to truncate its all-embracing
scope and meaning, for to do so would be to violate
its activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic concept
with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be
"cribbed, cabined and confined" within traditional and
doctrinaire limits. From a positivistic point of view,
equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality
6 (1974) 4 SCC 3
sqp /vss 25 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to
the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the
whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an
act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is unequal both
according to political logic and Constitutional law and
is therefore violative of Article 14, and if it affects any
matter relating to public employment, it is also
violative of Article 16. Articles 14 and 16 strike at
arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and
equality of treatment. They require that State action
must be based on equivalent relevant principles
applicable alike to all similarly situate and it must not
be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant
considerations because that would be denial of
equality. Where the operative reason for State action,
as distinguished from motive inducing from the
antechamber of the mind, is not legitimate and
relevant but is extraneous and outside the area of
permissible considerations, it would amount to mala
fide exercise of power and that is hit by Articles 14
and 16. Mala fide exercise of power and arbitrariness
are different lethal radiations emanating from the
same vice : in fact the latter comprehends the former.
Both are inhibited by Articles 14 and 16.”
(emphasis supplied)
18. There is yet another recent decision of the Apex Court which has
had occasion to consider the mandate of Article 16 that guarantees
equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to public
employment in any office under the State or the Instrumentalities of the
State, in the case of State of Bihar vs. Upendra Narayan Singh7
, In
paragraphs 17 and 18 thereof, the Court observed thus:
“17. ….. Equality of opportunity to all irrespective
of their caste, colour, creed, race, religion and place
of birth which constitutes one of the core values of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights also forms
part of preamble to the Constitution of India, which
7 (2009) 5 SCC 65
sqp /vss 26 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
reads as under:
“WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having
solemnly resolved to constitute India into a
SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all
its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief,
faith and worship; 
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;
and to promote among them all;
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the
individual and the unity and integrity of the
Nation;
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this
twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY
ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES
THIS CONSTITUTION.”
18.For achieving various goals set out in the
preamble, framers of the Constitution included a set
of provisions in Part III with the title "Fundamental
Rights" and another set of provisions in Part IV with
the title "Directive Principles of State Policy". The
provisions contained in Part III of the Constitution by
and large contain negative injunctions against State's
interference with the fundamental rights of individuals
and group of individuals and also provide for remedy
against violation of such rights by direct access to the
highest Court of the country. Part IV enumerates
State's obligation to make policies and enact laws for
ensuring that weaker segments (have nots) of the
society are provided with opportunities to come up to
a level where they can compete with others (haves).”
(emphasis supplied).
In Paragraph 25 of the same decision, the Court observed thus:
25.The equality clause enshrined in Article 16
mandates that every appointment to public posts
or office should be made by open advertisement
sqp /vss 27 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
so as to enable all eligible persons to compete
for selection on merit Umesh Kumar Nagpal v.
State of Haryana and Ors. [1994] 3 SCR 893 ; Union
Public Service Commission v. Girish Jayanti Lal
Vaghela, AIR 2006 SC 1165 ; State of Manipur and
Ors. v. Y. Token Singh and Ors. (2007) 5 SCC 65
and Commissioner, Municipal Corporation,
Hyderabad and Ors. v. P. Mary Manoranjani and
Anr. AIR 2008 SC 1089. Although, the Courts have
carved out some exceptions to this rule, for example,
compassionate appointment of the dependent of
deceased employees, for the purpose of this case it
is not necessary to elaborate that aspect.”
(emphasis supplied).
This decision extracts the relevant portion from the decision in the
case of Excise Superintendent vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao.8
In
paragraph 6 thereof, the three – Judge Bench of the Apex Court noted
that many a deserving candidate is deprived of the right to be
considered for appointment to a post under the State. Therefore, in
addition, the Appropriate Authority should invite applicants to compete
by publication in the newspapers having wider circulation and also
display on their office notice boards or announce on radio, television
and employment news bulletins; and then consider the cases of all the
candidates who have applied. Only on following this procedure, fair play
would be subserved and equality of opportunity provided to all eligible
candidates in the matter of public employment. This view has been
reiterated in the case of Union Public Service Commission vs. Girish
8 (1996) 6 SCC 216
sqp /vss 28 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
Jayantilal Vaghela9
 and in paragraph 9 of Arun Kumar Nayak vs.
Union of India.10
19. After having considered the relevant decisions, the Apex Court in
Upendra Singh (supra), concluded thus:
“31. The ratio of the above noted three judgements is
that in terms of Section 4 of the 1959 Act, every
public employer is duty bound to notify the vacancies
to the concerned employment exchange so as to
enable it to sponsor the names of eligible candidates
and also advertise the same in the newspapers
having wider circulation, employment news
bulletins, get announcement made on radio and
television and consider all eligible candidates
whose names may be forwarded by the
concerned employment exchange and/or who
may apply pursuant to the advertisement
published in the newspapers or announcements
made on radio/television.
32. Notwithstanding the basic mandate of Article 16
that there shall be equality of opportunity for all
citizens in matters relating to employment for
appointment to any office under the State, the spoil
system which prevailed in America in 17th and 18th
centuries has spread its tentacles in various
segments of public employment apparatus and a
huge illegal employment market has developed in the
country adversely affecting the legal and
constitutional rights of lakhs of meritorious members
of younger generation of the country who are forced
to seek intervention of the court and wait for justice
for years together.”
(emphasis supplied).
In paragraph 38, the Court has observed thus: 
“38. With a view to insulate the public employment
apparatus in independent India from the virus of spoil
system, the framers of the Constitution not only made
9 (2006) 2 SCC 482
10(2006) 8 SCC 111
sqp /vss 29 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
equal opportunity in the matter of public employment
as an integral part of the fundamental rights
guaranteed to every citizen but also enacted a
separate part, i.e., Part XIV with the title "Services
under the Union and the States. …..... ". 
(emphasis supplied).
The Court has also adverted to the exposition in the case of
Union of India v. N.Hargopal11
, in para 9 thereof. Relevant portion of
paragraph 9 of that decision reads thus : 
“9. ...The object of recruitment to any service
or post is to secure the most suitable person who
answers the demands of the requirements of the job.
In the case of public employment, it is necessary to
eliminate arbitrariness and favouritism and introduce
uniformity of standards and orderliness in the matter
of employment. There has to be an element of
procedural fairness in recruitment. If a public
employer chooses to receive applications for
employment where and when he pleases, and
chooses to make appointments as he likes, a
grave element of arbitrariness is certainly
introduced. This must necessarily be avoided if
Articles 14 and 16 have to be given any meaning.
…..............................” 
(emphasis supplied)
20. The common thread (of exposition of the Apex Court) running
through all these decisions, tersely put, is that, issuing of open public
advertisements for inviting applications from “all” the eligible persons to
compete for selection on merit for being appointed against the public
posts, is the only regime which guarantees equality of opportunity
under Article 16 r/w Article 14. There is injunction against the State to
refrain from interfering with the fundamental rights of equality of
11 (1987) 3 SCC 308
sqp /vss 30 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
opportunity in the matter of public employment. Neither the Parliament
nor the State Legislature can abridge that right. On the other hand, the
Constitutional scheme impels the State to make policies and laws to
uphold fairness, transparency, equality and also further the cause of the
weaker segments of the Society, in the matter of public employment. 
21. No Supreme Court decision has been brought to our notice, which
holds that appointments of direct recruits against public posts can be
done through campus interview, as an exception to the rule of selection
process by giving public advertisement and inviting applications from all
interested persons who are duly qualified and eligible to be considered
in furtherance of the rule of equality of opportunity. Notably, the framers
of the Constitution have enacted provision, to spell out the exceptions to
the Rule of Equality of opportunity in the matters of public employment
guaranteed under Article 16(1) and (2) to the Constitution, by
incorporating clauses (3) to (5) in Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
Clause (3) is an enabling provision. It enables the Parliament to make a
law to prescribe, in regard to a class or classes of employment or
appointment to an office under the Government of, or any local or other
Authority within, a State or Union Territory, any requirement as to
residence within that State or Union Territory prior to such employment
or appointment. Clause (4) of Article 16 enables the State to make
sqp /vss 31 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any
backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not
adequately represented in the services under the State. Clause (4A) of
Article 16 pertains to reservation in matters of promotion with which we
are not concerned in the present case. Similarly, Clause (4B) of Article
16 deals with Authority of the State to consider any unfilled vacancies of
a year which are reserved for being filled up in that year in accordance
with any provision for reservation made under clause (4) or (4A) as a
separate class of vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding year or
years. Clause (5) of Article 16 stipulates that Article 16 shall not affect
the operation of any law which provides that the incumbent of an office
in connection with the affairs of any religious or denominational
institution or any member of the government body thereof shall be a
person professing a particular religion or belonging to a particular
denomination. The impugned policy of allowing appointments to the
post of Officers of the respondent–Bank through campus
interview/campus recruitment, indisputably, is not ascribable to any of
these exceptions to the Rule of equality of opportunity in the matter of
public employment. In other words, the Constitutional Scheme does not
envisage appointment through campus recruitment / campus interview
against any office under the State; nor any decision of the Apex Court
has been brought to our notice, which has taken that view. On the other
sqp /vss 32 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
hand, the consistent view of the Apex Court, is that, wide publicity of the
process, its transparency and fairness is the hallmark of equality of
opportunity in the matter of public employment. Thus, the inviolable
right enshrined in Article 16 can be secured and consumated only by
giving wide publicity to invite applications from “all” eligible candidates.
The selection process, limited to the students from specified institutes, is
bound to be replete with the element of arbitrariness; and antithesis to
the right of equality of opportunity in the matter of public employment –
which must be fair, just and equitable. Borrowing the expression of the
Apex Court – one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other,
to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. 
22. Indeed, even in the case of Upendra Singh (supra), the Court
was required to consider the question in the context of appointments
made on adhoc basis without following prescribed procedure and inspite
of the ban imposed by the State Government in that behalf.
Nevertheless, the Court has examined the sweep and mandate of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, in particular, which
guarantees right of equality of opportunity to all qualified and eligible
persons in the matter of public employment. 
23. The importance of occupying public posts and in particular, right
to equality has been dealt with in the case of Indira Sawhney (supra)
sqp /vss 33 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
in paragraphs 644 (6) and 645(7) which have been extracted in
paragraph 41 of the decision in Umadevi's case (supra). The State is
not only expected to resort to fair procedure in the matter of
appointment against public posts, but is expected to conform to its
constitutional obligation of not discriminating or depriving the citizens of
this Country of equal opportunity in the matter of public employment and
including in making provision for the weaker segments of the Society.
These are the clear and binding imperatives to be observed by the State
in the matter of public employment, as envisaged by Articles 14 and 16.
24. The argument of administrative expediency or departure of the
norm in the name of enhancing professionalism and value addition, by
making appointments through campus recruitment, is not available to
the State. Those factors are and ought to be subservient to the
fundamental rights of equality guaranteed to all the citizens similarly
placed and more particularly possessing requisite qualification and
eligibility for being considered in the matter of public employment. That
guarantee is far superior and intended to do justice- social, economic
and political and also to provide equality of opportunity. This right, as
enshrined in Article 16, negates the argument of expediency and
business compulsion even if the stated activities of the State or
Instrumentalities of the State are commercial ventures. The
sqp /vss 34 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
professionalism in business does not come only by appointing “freshers”
from premier selected institutes, by resorting to campus recruitment.
There is no guarantee that all high ranking students from such
institutions would do better in practice, albeit in relative terms. They
may have initial advantage of wide exposure to the latest gadgets and
techniques of business. Those skills and techniques, however, can be
acquired even by others in due course after being appointed in the
public posts by undertaking refresher courses suited to the need of the
business activities to be handled by them. Further, there is also no
guarantee that the students of premier institutions would not end up in
leaving the organisation sooner or later on finding better pastures
elsewhere. The attrition rate at senior managerial positions is certainly
high in private sector, which is a well known fact. 
25. The rights of multitude aspiring unemployed candidates or
candidates wanting to do career progression, are far higher and superior
rights than the policy of the PSBs to follow best practices of the private
sector for enhancing professionalism and make profits. Indubitably, the
public sector undertakings must do well - as it is its obligation being
trustees of public funds and interests. But, that does not allow it to
resort to the same methods and tactics “in every respects” as that of the
private sector, in the name of autonomy, thereby trampling the
sqp /vss 35 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens of equal opportunity in the
matter of public employment. As per the constitutional scheme, the
State is under obligation of delivering social and economic justice to all
sections and providing equal opportunity to all. The State must arrange
its affairs and resources to subserve the common good. It is no
obligation of the State to “patronage” select few institutions by providing
employment to their students. 
26. As aforesaid, if the State or instrumentality of the State intends to
upgrade the level of efficiency and performance of its officers, may
utilise the expertise of professionals and including premier institutions by
conducting refresher and guidance courses about the new business
techniques and latest applications for its officers. In other words, the
State must resort to HR initiatives for upgrading the proficiency and
efficiency of its officers rather than finding out easy solution of
appointments to public posts through campus recruitment. There is no
guarantee that favouritism and other malpractices will not be the
buzzword in that dispensation, keeping in mind the high number of
public posts and employment market of the public sector undertakings in
India. That may lead to the inevitable problem noticed by the Apex
Court resulting in “Spoil Systems”, in Upendra Singh (supra).
sqp /vss 36 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
27. Notably, there is no empirical data that all the organisations - be it
private or public sector undertaking – who have resorted to method of
campus recruitment of freshers have always yielded better profits or that
those persons were instrumental in any turn around plan or success of
the organisation. The success of any business organisation essentially,
is linked to strong leadership, planning, organising, execution and HR
initiatives taken by it. Further, new business methods and techniques
can be acquired by consulting professionals of high order, which
module can be then executed under proper supervision of the experts.
It is in public domain that even without resorting to the method of
campus recruitment, the public sector banks, after liberalisation of the
national economy and until formulation of the impugned policy in 2009,
have been able to successfully compete with the private sector and also
recorded substantial profits. That was because of the logistical
advantage PSBs have and the abiding faith of the stakeholders in them
– being public sector undertakings. The PSBs have huge reputation
about its fair business tactics. In other words, it is not as if only by
resorting to campus recruitment since 2009, the PSBs have started
doing better than before. Assuming that the public sector undertakings
have been benefited to some extent because of campus recruitment,
that argument cannot be the basis to trample the fundamental rights of
sqp /vss 37 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
the citizens of equality of opportunity in the matter of public employment
guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 
28. The other option, which may be a better option and also in
conformity with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 16 of
equality of opportunity in the matter of public employment, is to provide
higher benchmark of qualification and eligibility at the selection stage
itself. Suffice it to observe that the justification offered by the
respondents in support of their policy of appointments of direct recruits
through campus interview, in our opinion, is untenable and
impermissible as per the constitutional scheme. That policy is founded
on assumptions. In absence of any empirical data in support thereof, it
is nothing but presumptuous. 
29. Indeed, the respondent bank may have stated on affidavit that all
possible care and caution is taken while selecting the
institutions/colleges from where the students would be considered for
campus recruitment. However, this argument clearly ignores the
contemporary situation that large number of Indian students are
studying abroad for acquiring higher qualifications. The institutes in
foreign countries are no less than any of the specified premier
institutions in India. Those students either have gone abroad by choice
or because of necessity due to not getting admission in the premier
sqp /vss 38 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
institutions/colleges in India. Even these students will be denied equal
opportunity in the matter of public employment. The argument that
other candidates are free to compete for the remaining public posts to
be filled by public advertisements, cannot be any justification to abridge
the fundamental right enshrined in Article 16 of equality in the matter of
public employment. The hallmark of equality of opportunity, is not of the
marks obtained in the qualifying examinations/degrees or having
pursued studies in specified institutions, but of opportunity to compete
for public employment to one and all similarly placed possessing
minimum qualification for eligibility to be considered for appointment. 
30. It is indisputable that the College and University ranking reckons
the factor of its empanelment for campus recruitment or placements in
various successful organisations. Such Colleges are given higher
rating. Resultantly, there will be undue competition between the
institutions to get empanelled with the respondent bank and other PSU
for campus recruitment. That may give rise to all kinds of situations and
unfair means at both ends, resulting in a situation of “Spoil System” as
warned by the Apex Court in the case of Upendra Singh (Supra). 
31. Suffice it to hold that when the Constitution guarantees
fundamental right to its citizens, of equality of opportunity in the matter
of public employment, it becomes the corresponding duty of the State
sqp /vss 39 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
and Instrumentalities of the State to uphold and deliver that right by
giving equal opportunity to all citizens. That is the constitutional need
and duty of the State and the Instrumentalities of the State. Neither the
Government of India nor the respondent bank can turn nelson's eye to
that obligation on the argument of expediency and administrative
convenience of the PSBs.
32. We would now turn to the recruitment policy of the Respondent
Bank. According to the Respondents, it is the outcome of the directives
issued by the Government of India. The first such directive pressed into
service is dated 19th September, 2001. The same reads thus:
“F. No. 5/1/6/2001-1R
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Economic Affairs
(Banking Division)
IR Section
New Delhi, dated the 19th September, 2001
The Chief Executives of all the Public Sector Banks
Recruitment in Banks.
I am directed to the announcement made by the Hon'ble
Finance Minister regarding abolition of Banking Service
Recruitment Board and providing greater evidence to bank
managements in forming their own recruitment strategy and
implementing dependable to Bank prompt.
Banks have already been advised to take steps for closure of
the BSRBs as early as possible. It has now been decided that
each bank may frame its own recruitment strategy with
approval of its board, to meet his future requirements.
sqp /vss 40 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
However, while framing such strategy, Bank may be guided by
the following:
1. The recruitment policy should be transparent.
2. The process of selection should be just, objective
and unbiased in all aspects and provide equal opportunity
to all eligible candidates.
3. Reservations in posts for SC, STs, OBCs, Exservicemen, Disabled, etc. With concessions in eligibility
norms as laid down by the Government of India from time
to time should be strictly followed.
4. There should not be any change with regard to
minimum/maximum age criteria, educational qualifications, as
regards workmen employees and Probationary Officers.
However, banks may decided the educational
qualifications and experience as well as maximum age in
respect of specialist officers to be appointed in officers'
cadre.
5. The system should be economical and fee charged
from the candidates should be reasonable.
6. Candidates belonging to SC/STs, etc. May be
provided the same concessions in fee and cut-off marks to
which they are entitled to at present.
7. In the selection committees set up for interviews, due
representation should be given to the belonging to SC/STs
and minority communities.
8. The recruitment policy should not neglect with
rural background areas or from weaker sections of the
society.
9. The recruitment should be need based and in any
case it should not be made to fill up the vacancies caused due
to voluntary retirement scheme. As advised in this office letter
No. 4/8/7/2001-IR dated 26.4.2001 the recruitment should be
made strictly as per Manpower Plan as approved by the Board
of Directors of the Bank.
10. The should conform to the instructions issued by
Government/Reserve Bank of India from time to time on
creation of posts/filling up of vacancies/staff growth.
sqp /vss 41 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
A copy of the recruitment policy framed by the bank may
be sent to Government as and when by the Board.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(U.K.SINHA)
JOINT SECRETARY (IF)
Present nominee Directors on the
Boards of Public Sector Banks.
Copy to: Government nominee Directors on the Boards of
Public Sector Banks
Sd/- (U.K.SINHA)
JOINT SECRETARY (IF)”
(emphasis supplied)
33. On a bare perusal of this communication, there is nothing to
indicate that the direction given by the Government of India to the PSBs
was to resort to appointment by campus recruitment method. On the
contrary, this communication reiterates that the recruitment policy of
PSBs should be transparent, objective and unbiased in all respects and
must provide for equal opportunity to all eligible candidates It also
refers to the obligation to ensure reservation and give benefits to the
deserving persons and including to the rural background areas or
weaker sections of the society.
34. Reliance is also placed on recruitment policy of the Respondent
Bank stated in the memorandum to Board Committee of the
Respondent Bank dated 28.10.2002. The same reads thus:
sqp /vss 42 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
“RECRUITMENT POLICY IN OUR BANK
1. In pursuance to the Government of India
communication dated 19th September, 2001 advising the
Banks to formulate their own Recruitment Policy in the wake
of abolition of Banking Service Recruitment Boards (BSRBs),
a document containing the broad outline of the strategies to
be followed by the Bank on Recruitment matter, was
prepared and placed before the Board it its meeting held on
23rd August, 2002 vide Agenda Item No. BM/06/2002-03/3.6
(Tag 'A'). The Board, however, formed a Committee
consisting of four members Shri. V. N. Saxena, Executive
Director, Shri. R. Gandhi, RBI Nominee Director, Shri
Deepak Singh, Director and Shri Y. P. Mone, Director with the
undersigned as the convener, and advised that the said
Committee should look into the Recruitment Policy document
and a report thereon be placed before the Board after one
month.
2. In furtherance to the above direction of the Board,
the said Committee in its meeting held on 8th October, 2002
examined the draft of the Recruitment Policy so prepared
and placed before the Board. The report of the said
Committee is enclosed (Tag 'B'). The Recruitment Policy
document which is duly revised by incorporating the
observations of the Committee in the relevant provisions, is
also enclosed (Tag 'C').
3. Board is, therefore, requested to accord its approval
to the Recruitment Policy as outlined in the Annexure (Tag
'C').
(S. K. Gupta)
GENERAL MANAGER (PRS)
Encls: a/a
RECRUITMENT POLICY IN OUR BANK
1. Vide communication F/S/1/6/2001-IR dated 19th
September (Tag 'A') Government of India advised the Banks
to take suitable expeditious steps to formulate their own
Recruitment Policy which subserves their requirements in
line with the strategic Business plans. It has also been
stated that such recruitment strategies that would be framed
by the Banks should be in conformity with certain basic
principles which are enumerated therein. This
communication was placed before the Board in its meeting
dated 27th October 2001, for its information.
sqp /vss 43 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
2. The recruitment of personnel in the bank is broadly
guided by the guidelines received from Government of India,
Ministry of Finance, alongwith Corporate Objectives which
provide indicative insight for need and necessity on this
score from time to time and in tandem with the
management's declared policies, philosophies and
prerogatives etc. The policy is drafted keeping in mind the
above as also the corporate objective.
3. While for recruitment of Probationary Officers in
Scale 1 and Clerical staff the Government of India guidelines
in regard to age, qualification, recruitment procedure etc.
received from time to time and which were hitherto followed
by BSRBs have been incorporated in the Recruitment Policy
framed by us, for the recruitment of Officers in Scale II and
above in Mainstream and all Officers in Specialist Categories
where Government of India (GOI) advised that bank may
decide the same due consideration has been given on age,
qualification, experience, recruitment through campus
interview etc. Depending upon the requirement of the
specific post/category.
4. Having regard to the need and necessity of the
business requirement, the provisions of this policy, to the
extent not governed by the guidelines of Government of
India/RBI/IBA will be amended/modified from time to time
administratively with the approval of the Chairman &
Managing director where after the same will be placed before
the Board for its information. However, the amendments
necessitated on account of amendment/modification in the
guidelines of Government of India/RBI/IBA will be adopted
with the due approval of the Board.
5. Accordingly, and also in compliance with the
Government directives stated in para 1 above, a document
has since been prepared containing the broad outline of the
strategies to be followed by the Bank on Recruitment matters
as per enclosure (Tag 'B').
6. Board is, therefore, requested to accord its approval
to the Recruitment Policy as obtained in the Annexure (Tag
'B' and for delegating the powers to the Chairman and
Managing Director for making modifications/amendments
etc. therein as stated in para 4 above.
(S. K. GUPTA)
GENERAL MANAGER (PRS)”
sqp /vss 44 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
35. Reliance is then placed on the communication issued by the Joint
Secretary (BO & A) Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs
(Banking Division) dated 22nd February, 2005. The same reads thus:
“EXHIBIT “G”
AMITABH VERMA Ministry of Finance
Jt. Secretary (BO & A) Department of Economic
Tel. 23342287 (Banking Division)
Jeevan Deep”
10, Parliament Street,
New Delhi 110001.
D. O. No. 7/48/2004-BOA 22nd February, 2005.
Dear Shri Singh,
As you are aware, the Finance Minister in his budget
speech had mentioned that the public sector banks (PSBs)
would have full managerial ......... The National Common
Minimum Programme of the Government of India, inter alia,
provides that the PSBs will be given full managerial autonomy.
In fact, with the opening of the economy and growing
globalization, the PSBs are now, more market driven. The
banking sector is increasingly becoming seamless to compete
with the best of the private / foreign banks. Consequently, the
PSBs have to function with total autonomy and operational
flexibility at par with their global counterparts.
11. It was in this context, among others, certain
measures proposed for managerial autonomy for the PSBs,
were discussed in the meeting of the Hon'ble FM with Chief
Executive of the PSBs held recently on 28.1.2005 at New
Delhi. Based on the discussions in the above said meeting, we
have since finalized the Managerial Autonomy for the Public
Sector Banks, the details of which are given in the enclosed
Annexure, for your information, guidance and further action by
your bank.
With regards,
Yours sincerely,
sd/-
(AMITABH VERMA)
ANNEXURE to the above letter
sqp /vss 45 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
Managerial Autonomy for Public Sector Banks
Background:
1. The functioning of commercial organizations in most
developed jurisdictions is marked by a separation of ownership
and management. With the opening up of the Indian economy
and growing internationalization, the Public Sector Banks
(PSBs) have now to compete with the best banks in the region.
Consequently, there is a vital need to provide a level playing
field for PSBs. This can be achieved by allowing them
operational flexibility and functional autonomy on lines
comparable with their global counter-parts and those in the
private sector in India.
2. Managerial autonomy for Public Sector banks would
imply that their Board of Directors is vested with the freedom
and responsibility for deciding managerial issues within the
broad framework of Government policies. There should be a
clear demarcation between the roles of owners, the Board of
Directors and the executive management. The present
situation, where even on purely managerial and routine
administrative issues, banks are required to operate under
Government guidelines should be replaced by a framework
where all such issues are driven by policy prescriptions of the
Board of Directors. The objective is to ensure that Banks
function on sound principles of corporate governance. The key
issue is to design a framework in which Government will
experience its ownership rights without transgressing into the
management functions of the PSBs. Hence, a framework for
managerial autonomy for the PSBs has been drawn up clearly
defining the role of the Government and providing the requisite
flexibility to the management of the banks in respect of their
operations.
Role of the Government
3. The Government will continue to exercise the following
functions in its capacity as the owner:
i) Appointment of the Chairperson & Managing
Director and the Executive Directors in the PSB.
Government has formulated overall HR policy guidelines to
strengthen professionalism and ensure, greater
consistency in managerial capability across Banks. The
guidelines will provide for clear criteria, a transparent
sqp /vss 46 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
process and a deeper and wider base of selection to
ensure a 3-5 year term for CMDs and Eds.
ii) Appointment of eminent persons as Nonofficial Directors based on the ?it and proper criteria, from
various interest groups / fields as provided in the statute.
For this, a talent pool may be drawn up by Government /
RBI.
iii) Appropriate control at the macro-level and
regular review of the performance / achievement of the
bank on important pre-determined parameters fixed in
consultation with the Board of Directors of the Bank.
4. The Government now owns 100 percent equity in only
4 of the 19 Nationalized Banks. The existence of private
shareholders in the PSBs imposes a responsibility on
Government, as the majority shareholder, to enhance
shareholder value and protect minority shareholders' rights.
The Government will create an environment conducive for the
PSBs to raise additional funds from the market for meeting the
Base II requirements and to respond effectively to emerging
competitive measures.
Role of Board of Directors of Public Sector Banks
5. Existing criteria for operational autonomy
Operational autonomy, as indicated in para 6 below, is already
available to banks that fulfil the following criteria:
(ci) Earned net profits in the past three years
(cii) Capital Adequacy Ratio (CAR) of more than 9 per cent as on
31.03.2001.
(ciii) Net NPA level below 9 per cent of net advances.
(civ) Minimum owned funds of Rs. 100 crore.”
6. Existing Areas of Autonomy:
At present, Public Sector Banks enjoy operational
autonomy in the following areas:
19.Placement of personnel in overseas branches.
20.Promotion to senior executive grades i.e. Up to the
level of Gms. In particular, banks are free to draw
up their own policy for creation, abolition,
upgradation of posts and 'Fast Track' promotions,
upto Deputy General Managers.
21.Out-of-turn promotions.
sqp /vss 47 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
22.Deputation of officers, lateral induction of officers
on contract basis and lateral mobility of officers
within the bank.
23.Prescribing minimum educational qualifications for
subordinate staff.
24.Fix requirement of rural postings for bank officers.
25.Campus recruitment to attract talent.
26.Transfer and posting of all staff and officers upto 
General Manager level.
7. Areas of further operational autonomy to the Board of
Directors now proposed:
As per part of good corporate governance the executive
management comprising Whole Time Directors and the top
management team should be directly responsible to the Board
of Directors. The Boards of PSBs will enjoy freedom to carry
out their functions efficiently and without impediment, subject
to statutory requirements, Government policy prescriptions and
regulatory guidelines issued by RBI from time to time Banks
will be allowed freedom of action in the following areas:
(i) Pursue new lines of business as part of overall
business strategy.
(ii) Make suitable acquisitions of companies or
businesses, close / merge unviable branches, open overseas
offices, set up subsidiaries and exit a line of business.
(iii) Decide all Human Resources issues relating to the
Bank including staffing pattern, recruitment, placement,
transfer, training, promotions, pensions etc.
(iv) Prescribe standards for categorization of branches,
based on volume of business and other relevant factors.
(v) Prescribe essential academic qualifications, minimum
qualification standards and modalities of promotion /
recruitment to various categories.
(vi) Undertake visits to foreign countries to interest with
investors, depositors and other stakeholders.
(vii) Lay down policy of accountability and responsibility
of Bank officials and take action against erring Bank officials in
conformity with such policy. The policy framework should
provide for stringent punishment for all malafide actions but, at
the same time, recognize that bonafide errors do occur while
making decisions relating to commercial judgment.
8. Further autonomy / powers to stronger banks exhibiting
good performance:
In the case of banks which, as on 31.03.2004, fulfil the
following criteria:
sqp /vss 48 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
26.Earned net profits over the last three years.
27.Capital Adequacy Ratio of 9 percent or more.
28.Net NPAs less than 4 percent, and
29.Minimum owned funds of Rs. 300 crores.
As a part of the overall HR policy guidelines, it is now
proposed to allow the Board of Directors to exercise, the
following additional powers and functions:
(i) Framing HR policies and procedures. Boards will
have the flexibility to frame their own HR policies and
procedures for recruitment including eligibility criteria, mode of
selection, levels of entry etc.
(ii) Creation of additional posts of General managers
Boards would be authorized to create additional posts of
General managers based on need. The policy guidelines will
also provide for mobility at the General manager level between
Banks.
(iii) Decisions on remuneration and compensation of
officers and staff. The overall pay structure of officers and staff
is now determined after industry-wide negations. The Boards
would now be free to sanction differential pay, linked to
performance, within the pay scales decided after the
negotiations. Such incentives are intended as tangible
recognition for a small proportion of personnel in each scale
who are genuinely outstanding performance. Specialized
cadre can also continue to be provided differential
remuneration. This will help banks attract talented individuals
in operational areas like marketing, information technology, risk
management and credit. Such differential remuneration will be
subject to an overall ceiling for establishment expenditure.
(iv) Decisions on the amount of contribution to be
made to the Staff Welfare Fund. The existing guidelines do not
make any distinction between the size of different banks, their
varying number of employees and their levels of performance.
The guideline prescribing a uniform contribution of 3 per cent
of the bank's Net Profit or a maximum of Rs. 10 crore will be
replaced by an upper ceiling on the contribution to be made
per employee.
9. With the globalization of the Indian Economy and the
advent of private banks that are more nimble-footed and have
access to a wealth of technology and managerial resources,
Public Sector Banks have to be better equipped with greater
operational flexibility to transact business more efficiently.
Government, as the principal stakeholder, wished to make
room for such autonomy and provide the Public Sector Banks
sqp /vss 49 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
with a level playing field. It is in this context that the
managerial autonomy features as aforementioned have been
designed.” (emphasis supplied) 
36. No doubt, this communication refers to the National Common
Minimum Programme of the Government of India and recognises that
with the opening of the economy and growing globalization, the PSBs
are now more market driven. In view of increasingly becoming
seamless to compete with the best of the private/foreign banks it was
essential to grant total autonomy and operational flexibility at par with
their global counterparts. On that basis, the recruitment policy of the
Respondent Bank has been formulated as amended/adopted by its
Board up to 5th March, 2009. The amended recruitment policy permits
appointments through campus selection in addition to the selection
procedure through advertisement. As regards the campus selection, the
clause contained in the said policy reads thus:
“Through Campus Selection:
Notwithstanding what is stated above, the management, at
its discretion, can resort to campus recruitment through
Indian Institute of Management, reputed colleges affiliated to
Universities recognized by University Grants Commission /
reputed institutions, etc. The methodology for selection
through campus recruitment, including Selection Committee /
Agency will be decided by the Bank with the approval of the
Board of Directors, from time to time.”
37. The conclusion of the recruitment policy, given in Chapter VI
reads thus:-
sqp /vss 50 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
“CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSION
This Recruitment policy aims to sub-serve the basic
objective of acquiring the right personnel with right
qualifications and experience at right time and right place.
It commits itself to the Organization's mission to enrich the
human resources by motivating them through providing growth
opportunities, improving employee loyalty to the organization
on one hand and by safeguarding the societal interests through
serving the community by absorbing the weaker sections who
are otherwise deserving to be appointed in the organization, on
the other.”
(emphasis supplied)
38. This policy was approved by the Board of Respondent Bank. The
approval resolution passed by the Board of Directors on 28th March,
2009 reads thus:
“13M/549/2008-09/17/2.37
Mtg. Dt : 28.03.2009
Recruitment of officers on Contractual Basis through Campus
Selection Mode.
A Memorandum seeking in principal approval for initiating the
campus recruitment of key talents on contractual basis as per
the broad criteria outlined therein, as a one time measure and
beyond the provisions of Recruitment Policy and to authorise
the CMD to decide the modalities, actual terms/conditions etc
for the said process, as detailed in the Agenda, was placed
before the Board.
A P P R O V E D
RESOLVED THAT proposal for in
principal (sic principle) approval
for initiating the campus
recruitment of key talents on
contractual basis as per the
broad criteria outlined therein, as
a one time measure and
beyond the provisions of
Recruitment Policy and to
sqp /vss 51 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
authorise the CMD to decide the
modalities, actual terms/
conditions etc. for the said
process, as detailed in the
Agenda, be and is hereby
APPROVED.”
_________________________________________________
(emphasis supplied)
39. On the basis of this approval to the amended recruitment policy,
“which was intended to be only one time measure and to make those
appointments on contract basis”, the appointment process through
campus interview to fill up the regular posts earmarked for direct
recruits, has been resorted to on year to year basis since 2009. That is
in transgression of the limited approval given by the board of
Respondent Bank. The chart showing the comparative position of
recruitment of officers through advertisement and by campus mode
done by the Respondent Bank from time to time on that basis, reads
thus:
“Comparative Chart Showing Recruitment of Officers Through
Advertisement and Campus Mode
Year Intake of Officers
Through
Advertisement
Intake of Officers
Through Campus
2009-10 858 20
2010-11 1155 82
2011-12 17 98
1012-13 1538* 238*
Total 3567 438
sqp /vss 52 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
* Result of 1000 Probationary Officers are to be declared
shortly.
** Appointment letter not issued to 139 selected candidates
which comprises 50 Agriculture Finance Officers and 89
MBAs/CAs through campus mode in view of the Court's
order.”
40. To start with the campus interview was done only from amongst 7
Colleges/Institutions in the year 2009, from 4 Chartered Accountant
Institute Centers and 21 other Colleges/Institutions in the year 2010. In
the year 2011, the campus interview was done in 23
Colleges/Institutions and in the year 2012, from 19 Colleges/Institutions
and 9 centers of Indian Chartered Accountant Institute. The candidates
selected in the year 2012 from different Colleges/Institutions indicated in
the chart furnished to the Court, which reads thus:
“LIST OF INSTITUTES (MBA) WHERE CANDIDATES WERE SELECTED –
2012
1 NMIMS, Mumbai
2 NIBM, Pune
3 Lal bahadur Shastri Institute of Management, Delhi
4 International Management Institute, New Delhi
5 BIMTEC
6 IIFT
7 Symbiosis Pune
8 IBS Hyderabad
9 IMIS Bhubaneswar 
10 Jaipuria Institute, Lucknow
11 Mukesh Patel School of Technology Engagement & Eng.
12 Sinhagad Pune
13 KIIT Bhubaneswar
sqp /vss 53 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
14 Alliance University, Hyderabad
15 Prestige Institute of Management, Indore
16 IIPS, Indore
17 IEM, Kolkata 
18 VIT, Vellore
19 University of Calcutta
CA INSTITUTES - 2012
SR.
NO.
CENTRE
1 ICAI, CHANDIGARH
2 ICAI, KANPUR
3 ICAI, JAIPUR
4 ICAI, INDORE
5 ICAI, HYDERABAD
6 ICAI, MUMBAI
7 ICAI, AHMEDABAD
8 ICAI, DELHI
9 ICAI, CHENNAI
“LIST OF INSTITUTES (AFO) WHERE CANDIDATES
WERE SELECTED – 2012 
1 Acharya N. G. Ranga Agriculture University Hyderabad
2 G B Pant University of Agri. & Tech. Pantnagar
3 Jawahar Lal Krishi Viswavidyalaya Jabalpur
4 Punjab Agriculture University Ludhiana
5 Allahabad Agriculture Institute Allahabad
6 Acharya Narendra Deo Krishi Viswavidyalaya Faizabad
7 Birsa Agr. University Ranchi
8 Rajmata Vijayaraje University Viswa Vidyalaya Gwalior
9 Choudhary Charan Singj Haryana Agri. University Hissar
10 Mahatma Phule K V. Rahuri (M. S.)
sqp /vss 54 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
NORTH EAST INSTITUTES 2012
SN. INSTITUTE
1 ICFAI, TRIPURA
2 NAMCHI GOVT. COLLEGE KAMRANG NAMCHI, SIKKIM
3 SIKKIM MANIPAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, EAST SIKKIM”
41. Notably, most of the Colleges / Institutions from where campus
recruitment has been done are private colleges. This gives credence to
the theory of possibility of pick and choose approach adopted in
empanellment of the stated colleges / institutions, albeit after scrutiny of
applications by a committee set up by the respondent – Bank. A grave
element of arbitrariness is certainly introduced in the empanellment
procedure. Further, it is evident that equal opportunity to “all” similarly
placed candidates in the matter of public employment is far to seek, no
matter the insignificant number of appointments made through the mode
of campus interview, i.e., only 12.27% out of total intake of officers
during the relevant period.
42. The candidates, who apply pursuant to the advertisement issued
by the State or Instrumentalities of the State, do it with full knowledge
and realisation that they have to serve the common man by discharging
their duties in public office. There is no reason to presume that they will
be less efficient or not innovative in the business methods, if given the
sqp /vss 55 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
opportunity. Further, even if a candidate selected through campus
recruitment may be relatively high ranking and had pursued his studies
in a premier Institution/College, being a fresher, he may have to fall in
line with the same existing set up, policy issues and infrastructure of the
organisation. Indubitably, no empirical data has been collated nor
produced before us to indicate that the candidates selected in the
campus interview process are far superior in every respects and have
consistently secured exceptionally high scores than the “best candidate”
in order of merit selected pursuant to advertisement process. In that
sense, the selection of candidates through campus interview is
completely subjective. Objectivity is ensured by reckoning the scores
secured by the competing candidates who participate in the written
examination and viva voce, as the case may be, at the same time,
pursuant to the public advertisement process. To put it differently, the
success of the PSBs would largely depend on the political leadership,
federated governance, shared enterprise frameworks and HR initiatives
and not because of the candidates selected from few empanelled
colleges/institutions through campus interview. Moreover, employment
of such candidates is no guarantee that the efficiency and performance
of the organisation will be enhanced significantly. Then, certainly, that
option is not good enough, so as to trample the fundamental right of
equality of opportunity in the matter of public employment, guaranteed
sqp /vss 56 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
to the persons possessing minimum prescribed qualification. On the
other hand, the State and Instrumentalities of the State are not only
under Constitutional obligation to secure justice – social & economic but
also to deliver equality of opportunity in the matter of public employment
to all similarly placed persons.
43. By resorting to campus interview process, as in this case, 12.27%
of vacancies are filled in by that mode. To that extent, the equality of
opportunity in the matter of public employment guaranteed to other
candidates similarly qualified and eligible for being considered from
other parts of India not connected with the stated institutions, is lost
forever.
44. We, therefore, hold that in the matter of public employment, as
per the Constitutional scheme, the mandate is to invite applications
from all the eligible persons by giving wide publicity, without exception.
The fact that other State Instrumentalities have resorted to campus
interview mode of appointment in the past, can be no basis to legitimise
that process; which, inevitably, tramples the fundamental rights of
otherwise qualified and eligible citizens for being considered against the
public posts alongwith similarly placed persons. 
sqp /vss 57 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
45. Indeed, as observed by the Apex Court in the case of Umadevi
(3) (supra) and Upendra Singh (supra), it may be possible for the
State or the Instrumentalities of the State to appoint persons through
campus recruitment / interview on “contract basis” for a limited tenure;
but when it comes to regular and permanent appointment against the
public posts, it must abide by the Constitutional scheme of inviting
applications by giving public advertisement and wide publicity and
providing equal opportunity to all similarly placed persons for being
considered in the matter of public employment. 
46. Thus, the argument of liberalisation, autonomy or continual
competition with the private sector; tapping of candidates from
specialised field or better qualified candidates through campus
recruitment; the candidates selected through campus interview are a
class unto themselves; that method has a reasonable nexus with the
object sought to be achieved for absorbing talented candidate from
reputed educational institutions and utilising their expertise to compete
and match the performance of private and foreign banks, all these can
be no basis to uphold the impugned action of the respondents. For, the
successive pronouncements of the Apex Court have reaffirmed that in
the matter of public employment, it should be done only by inviting
sqp /vss 58 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
applications from the public at large by giving wide publicity and issuing
public advertisement. 
47. The petitioners had also placed reliance on the provisions of
Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act,
1959 to contend that the same mandates that the State and the
Instrumentalities of the State should communicate the vacancy position
to the Employment Exchange from time to time to accomplish the
avowed object of the said enactment. The respondents, on the other
hand, would contend that the provisions of the said enactment are
directory and even if it were to be considered as mandatory, except
taking recourse to prosecution and penalty for breach thereof, nothing
more can be done. (See Dena Nath & Ors. vs. National Fertilisers
Ltd. & Ors.12, Nagendra Chandra & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand13).
Considering the view taken by us, it is unnecessary to burden this
judgment with the argument under consideration except to observe that
indisputably the vacancies for direct recruits, filled in by the respondent
– Bank through campus interview, were not notified to the Employment
Exchange. If the law warrants action for this lapse, the same be initiated
and taken to its logical end as per law.
12 (1992) 1 CLR 1 (SC)
13 (2008) 1 SCC 798
sqp /vss 59 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
48. The respondents have then placed reliance on the decision of the
Apex Court in the case of Sarva Shramik Sanghatana (KV), Mumbai
vs. State of Maharashtra,
14 to contend that the judgment in Umadevi
(3) (supra), should be considered in the context of the controversy
before that Court relating to regularisation or non-regularisation of the
temporary employees of the State. For the reasons already recorded, in
our opinion, this principle pressed into service will be of no avail.
49. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the
case of Uttaranchal Road Transport Corporation & Ors. vs.
Mansaram Nainwal,
15 to contend that the ratio in the case of Umadevi
(3) (supra), which commands that vacancies must be notified, relates to
open recruitment posts, which are filled up quietly and without the open
publication, which is contemplated by the very nature of the recruitment
process and, therefore, it will have no application to the case on hand.
This argument does not commend to us. We have not only quoted the
exposition in Umadevi's case (supra) extensively but also referred to
other successive decisions of the Apex Court, which have restated the
position that public posts must be filled by means no other than
14(2008) 1 SCC 494
152006 III CLR 585 (SC)
sqp /vss 60 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
advertisement. Else, it inevitably impinges upon the fundamental right
guaranteed to the citizens of equality of opportunity in the matter of
public employment. 
50. Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of
M.Nagaraj vs. Union of India16, to contend that the doctrine of
classification is read into Article 14 – equality of treatment – is an
objective test. It is not the test of intention. Therefore, the basic
principle underlying Article 14 is that the law must operate equally on all
persons under like circumstances and every discretionary power is not
necessarily discriminatory. We have already dealt with this aspect in
extenso in the earlier part of this judgment and opined that abridgment
of fundamental right of the citizens of equal opportunity in the matter of
public employment cannot be whittled down in the name of better
candidates are available to the Bank through campus interview.
51. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Division Bench of
our High Court in the case of Transport Union vs. Mumbai Port
Trust17. The exposition in this decision is of no avail to the
respondents. 
16(2006) 8 SCC 212 
17 2009 Vol. 3 CLR 1007 (BOM) (DB)
sqp /vss 61 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
52. That takes us to the decisions of the other High Courts pressed
into service by the respondents to justify its policy of recruitment through
campus interview and the action taken on the basis of such policy.
Notably, none of these judgments refer to the decision or for that matter,
the principle stated in Umadevi's case (supra). For that reason, the
respondents vehemently contended that the exposition in Umadevi (3)
(supra), be considered as relevant on its own facts. That contention,
however, has been negatived by us. Therefore, it may not be necessary
to elaborate on the decisions of other High Courts relied upon by the
respondents.
53. We may, however, refer to the first decision of the Kerala High
Court in the case of Federation of Central Government SC/ST
Employees (Kerala) Kochi Refineries Unit, Cochin vs. Kochi
Refineries Ltd.18
. In paragraph 7 of the said decision, the Court took
into account the pattern of mixed economy in which the State or the
public sector enterprises exist side by side with private sector. It went
on to observe that public sector enterprises now face stiff competition in
the area of petroleum products and they require today sufficient tools in
their armory to withstand threat of multinational and other private
18 2006 Lab. I.C. 2592
sqp /vss 62 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
companies. Multinational and other private companies employ best
talents who come out of educational institutions of repute like IITs, IIMs,
etc. with attractive offers even before they pass out of their institutions
through the method popularly known as campus recruitment. The
Court in paragraph 9 then went on to observe that persons who are
recruited through campus recruitment form a class by themselves.
Classification of those persons as a group, keeping in view the
administrative exigencies and need to enhance efficiency, this regime
cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of Article 16(1) of the
Constitution of India. Further, campus recruitment has a reasonable
nexus to the object sought to be achieved. It further held that
classification based on some qualities or characteristics of the persons
grouped together cannot be found fault with provided those qualities
have a reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Further,
guarantee of equality does not imply that same recruitment rules should
be made applicable to all persons inspite of differences in their
circumstances and conditions. When State indulges in business or in
commercial venture and there is cut throat competition new and novel
methodologies have to be adopted lest they may lose in the race which
will be against national interest. Broadly, on this logic, the Court upheld
the action of the public sector undertaking of taking recourse to campus
recruitment, as a permissible method. With utmost humility at our
sqp /vss 63 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
command, we disagree with this logic. No doubt, the State and the
Instrumentalities of the State, are required to engage in business or any
commercial venture and have to face stiff competition with private
sector. However, that does not mean that they would get licence to
trample the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens of this country
by the Constitution of India. As observed by the Apex Court in
Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala19, even the Parliament or the
State Legislature in this country cannot transgress the basic feature of
the Constitution, namely, the Principle of Equality enshrined in Article 14
of which Article 16 (1) is a facet. The private sector has no
constitutional obligation towards upholding of the justice-social,
economic and political and adherence to equality of status and
opportunity to all the citizens of the country, unlike in the case of State
and the Instrumentalities of the State. The State Authorities have to
strive to maintain and preserve the well cherished rights guaranteed by
the Constitution of equality much less of opportunity in the matter of
public employment. Notably, the Constitution recognises that it is the
obligation of the State to provide work to all the citizens within the limits
of its economic capacity and development for securing the right to work,
as per Article 41 of the Constitution of India. Public posts or public
employment can be equated with the material resources of the
19 (1973) 4 SCC 225 
sqp /vss 64 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
community, which ought to be distributed in a fair and equitable manner
to subserve the common good, by the State Authorities. Suffice it to
observe that for the reasons already indicated in the earlier part of the
judgment, we respectfully disagree with the opinion of the Division
Bench of the Kerala High Court referred to above. 
54. Another decision relied upon by the respondents of the learned
Single Judge of the Madras High Court in the case of Chennai
Petroleum Employees Union vs. General Manager, HR, Chennai
Petroleum Corporation Ltd20
, which essentially follows the principle
stated in the above stated decision. As a result, even this decision will
be of no avail. 
55. Reliance is then placed on the decision of the Division bench of
the Patna High Court in the case of Pravin Kumar vs. State of Bihar21
.
This decision has been followed in the subsequent decisions of the
Patna High Court in the case of Rajesh Roushan & anr. vs. State of
Bihar22. The Patna High Court more or less reasoned out on the same
logic as given by the Kerala High Court about administrative exigency
for which the administration must be allowed some play in the joints
20 Writ Petition No.5554 of 2009 decided on 25.11.2010 
21 Civil Writ Petition No.7200 of 2011 decided on 26.7.2011
22 Civil Writ Petition No.7616 of 2011 decided on 24.8.2011
sqp /vss 65 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
even though the appointments may not strictly conform to the
constitutional norms. In that case, a peculiar situation was faced by the
State Government due to large number of vacancies in the Electricity
Board necessitating taking recourse to campus recruitment of the
outgoing batch of the “Government Polytechnics in Bihar”. In the
peculiar facts of that situation, being emergent situation, the Court
declined to entertain challenge to campus selection. For the elaborate
reasons recorded in the earlier part of this judgment, we do not intend to
traverse every reason given by Patna High Court, which is given without
dealing with the dictum of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in
Umadevi's case (supra).
56. Further, it is noticed that the decision of the Kerala High Court in
the case of Federation of Central Government SC/ST Employees
(Kerala) Kochi Refineries Unit, Cochin (supra), was carried in Appeal
before the Apex Court being Civil Appeal No.4290 of 2007 and
connected matters decided on 8.5.2008. However, the Apex Court
dismissed the said appeal on the finding that the petition was not filed
by any affected person and as and when affected person approaches
the Court, the matter can be examined on merits. In other words, the
order of the Apex Court does not result in upholding the opinion of the
Kerala High Court so as to make the same binding precedent on this
sqp /vss 66 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
Court. For the reasons already recorded, we are not inclined to accept
the ground of administrative expediency, as a tangible ground for
departing from the rule regarding the method of filling of vacant public
posts to ensure that all citizens are provided with equality of opportunity
in the matter of public employment. 
57. The Petitioners' Counsel has justly relied on the dictum of the
Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the Ganga Ram vs. Union of
India23, wherein the Court has observed the the State is legitimately
empowered to frame rules of classification of securing the requisite
standard of efficiency in services and the classification need not be
scientifically perfect or logically complete. The Court then went on to
observe that the classification, in order to be outside the vice of
inequality, must be founded on an intelligible differentia, which on
rational grounds distinguishes persons grouped together from those left
out. The differences which warrant a classification must be real and
substantial and must bear a just and reasonable relation to the object
sought to be achieved. As is noted in the earlier part of this judgment,
even the Parliament cannot legislate on the subject that would impinge
upon the fundamental right of equality of opportunity in the matter of
public employment. Secondly, no empirical data has been produced, to
23 1970 (1) SCC 377 
sqp /vss 67 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
persuade the Court that the policy of filling up of public posts by
resorting to campus interview method is imperative and has become
indispensable. We are not impressed by the claim of the respondents
that the said dispensation fulfills the tests of justness, fairness,
reasonableness and having nexus to the object sought to be achieved.
In absence thereof, it is not possible to countenance the argument of the
respondent – Bank that the distinction made by them of the class of
candidates is real and substantial.
58. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition ought to succeed at least
to the extent of declaring the stated recruitment policy of the respondent
– Bank dated 5.3.2009 as also the Circular issued by the Government of
India dated 22.2.2005, which provides for recruitment of officers in the
public sector banks against “permanent vacancies” on “regular basis” by
resorting to campus recruitment / Interview method and not by inviting
applications from public at large by issuing public advertisement, being
illegal and unconstitutional. The respondents are directed to forbear
from making any appointment against the permanent vacancies on
regular basis by resorting to campus recruitment/Interview mechanism
hereafter and if such appointment is made, the same will be non-est in
law. 
sqp /vss 68 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::Bombay High Court
wp-l-2825.2012(J).doc
59. Rule made absolute on the abovesaid terms with no order as to
costs.
60. While parting, we may place on record that although the
arguments were concluded on 5.12.2012 but, as both sides wanted to
file written submissions, the judgment was reserved. Presumably, the
parties filed their written submissions in the Registry after 13.12.2012,
which, however, were placed before us by the Registry only on
29.1.2013.
(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (A.M. KHANWILKAR,J.)
sqp /vss 69 of 69
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2013 16:56:51 :::

Print Page