IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 165 of 2007 Nainital Almora Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Haldwani .……… Appellant. Versus Ganesh Singh Kabadwal and others .………. Respondents Present: Mr. R.K. Raizada, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J.S. Bisht, Advocate for the respondents. Date of decision: 24-06-2010 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) The respondents were appointed with the Nainital Almora Kshetriya Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as the “Nainital Bank”), the appellant herein, as daily wagers on Group “C” posts. During the course of their employment, the Nainital Bank issued an application format, requiring candidates to apply for direct recruitment against Group “C” posts. The respondents filled up the application format and applied for appointment by way of direct recruitment to Group “C” posts. The application forms submitted by the respondents were not entertained, whereupon the respondents approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1430 of 2007. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 28.09.2007. 2. The order dated 28.09.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1430 of 2007, is subject matter of challenge at the hands of the Nainital Bank through the instant Special Appeal. 3. A perusal of the impugned Judgment dated 28.09.2007 reveals, that having taken into consideration the Nainital Almora Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the “2001 Service Regulations”) in conjunction with the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotions of Officers and 2 other Employees) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the “1998 Rules”), this Court disposed of the writ petition filed by the respondents, directing the Nainital Bank to consider the candidature of the respondents for recruitment to Class IV (Group “C”) posts. In so far as the issue of appointment under the 2001 Service Regulations is concerned (which were framed by the Nainital Bank itself), Regulation 5 deals with appointments to the bank’s service. Regulation 5 is being extracted hereunder: “5. Appointment in the Bank’s Service: (1) The Chairman shall be the Appointing Authority in respect of Officers. The General Manager shall be the Appointing Authority in respect of employees: Provided that if there is no incumbent in the post of General Manager, the Chairman shall be the Appointing Authority in respect of employees also. (2) All appointments in the Bank shall be made in accordance with the rules framed by the Central Government in terms of Section 29 of the Act save as provided in Regulation 4. (3) Every officer or employee on his first appointment in the service of the Bank, shall be required to produce a certificate of fitness by the medical authority as may be prescribed or recognized by the Bank. (4) (i) Disqualification – No person, - (a) who has entered into or contracted a marriage with a person having a spouse living, or (b) who having a spouse living have entered into or contracted a marriage with any person shall be eligible for appointment to the said post. Provided that the Appointing Authority may if satisfied that such marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable to such person and the other party to the marriage and that there are other grounds for so doing, exempt from the operation of this Rule. (ii) Declaration Every officer or employee on his first appointment in the service of the Bank shall furnish a declaration about his marital status as per Schedule II.” Regulation 5 (2) (extracted hereinabove), however, reveals that appointments in the Nainital Bank were to be made in accordance with rules framed by the Central Government in terms of Section 29 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. It is not a matter of dispute, that the 1998 Rules were framed by the Central Government under Section 29 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. During the course of hearing of the instant Special Appeal, learned counsel for Nainital Bank, i.e. the 3 appellant herein, has placed emphatic reliance on Rule 10 of the 1998 Rules. Rule 10 relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is being extracted hereunder: “10. Recruitment to the posts of messenger, messenger- cum-sweeper, driver, driver-cum-messenger and security guard: (1) The posts of messenger, messenger-cum-sweeper (full or part time), driver, driver-cum-messenger, security guard shall be filled in by the Committee of the Regional Rural Banks after making a reference to the Employment Exchange. Sainik Board or other agencies catering to the welfare of Schedule Castes / Schedule Tribes, Physically handicapped persons or other category of persons as are recognized by the Central Government or the State Government having jurisdiction over the Regional Rural Bank filling the posts; Provided that preference shall be given to candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in accordance with the instructions or guidelines issued by the Central Government. (2) No candidates other than those sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Sainik Board or other agencies referred to in sub-rule (1) above shall be called for interview.” 4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the claim of the respondents could not be considered for appointment by way of direct recruitment to Group “C” posts, as their names had not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. For the aforesaid objective, learned counsel for the appellant, in the first instance, placed reliance on sub-Rule (1) of Rule 10 and supplemented the same with sub-Rule (2) thereof. Based on sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 of the 1998 Rules, it is submitted that no candidate, other than a candidate sponsored by the Employment Exchange, could be called for interview. For reserved categories, of course, candidates could be sought from the Sainik Board or welfare agencies of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and physically handicapped persons. Since the respondents do not belong to any of the said categories, it was the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that their claims could not be considered for appointment by way of direct recruitment, on account of a complete bar, whereby the appellant-bank was debarred from calling candidates, other than those sponsored by the Employment Exchange for interview. 4 5. We have considered the solitary submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-bank. The only objection to the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant was, that the selection process envisaged under the 2001 Service Regulations, and more particularly, Regulation 5 thereof, did not create any bar for consideration of candidates for the process of direct recruitment. 6. We have considered the sole objection to the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. In our view, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents is devoid of any merit. Regulation 5 (2), relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, expressly mandates, that all appointments to the Nainital Bank would be made in accordance with the rules framed by the Central Government under Section 29 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. Rule 10 of the 1998 Rules, which were framed by the Central Government under Section 29 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 clearly mandates the sources from which the names of candidates would be invited for purposes of direct recruitment. For general category candidates, like the respondents, only one source of recruitment has been prescribed in Rule 10 of the 1998 Rules, i.e. names sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Since, admittedly the claim of the respondents was not based on the fact, that their names had been sponsored by the Employment Exchange, but was based on the fact, that they were already engaged as daily wagers in the Nainital Bank, as such we are satisfied, that the respondents had no right of consideration for purposes of direct recruitment to the Nainital Bank in view of Regulation 5 of the 2001 Service Regulations read with Rule 10 of the 1998 Rules. The learned Single Judge, while recording the conclusions in respect of the claim of the respondents, had failed to take into consideration the implications of Rule 10 of the 1998 Rules, and therefore, had erred in directing the consideration of the respondents for appointment by way of direct recruitment. 7. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant Special Appeal is allowed. The Judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, allowing 5 Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1430 of 2007 vide order dated 28.09.2007, is hereby set aside. Amit (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 24.06.2010 24.06.2010