The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the initiation of a fresh interview process for promotion by the Punjab National Bank, ruling that a candidate’s placement in a reserve panel or waiting list does not create a vested right to appointment. The Court clarified that the right to be considered arises only if a selected candidate fails to join, and such a list operates for a limited period.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan delivered the judgment, observing that the vacancies determined for the previous financial year had already been filled, and the bank was within its rights to initiate the selection process for the subsequent year.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Shri Vijoy Joshi, joined the United Bank of India (now merged with Punjab National Bank) as a Probationary Officer on April 17, 1985. Between August 2017 and July 2019, he served as a Chief Regional Manager.
On April 6, 2019, interviews were conducted to prepare a panel for promotion from SMG Scale-V to Scale-VI for the Financial Year (F.Y.) 2019-20. Following this process, twelve vacancies were filled by selected candidates. The petitioner was placed at serial number 2 in the waiting list.
Subsequently, on February 26, 2020, the bank issued an interview letter for the formation of the promotion panel for the next Financial Year, 2020-21. The petitioner chose not to participate in this interview process. He later took voluntary retirement on September 15, 2020.
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking directions to set aside the interview process initiated on February 25, 2020, arguing that the waiting list from the previous year was still valid.
Contentions of the Parties
The counsel for the petitioner relied on the promotion policy of the United Bank of India (amended up to May 31, 2019). It was contended that under the policy, the supplementary waiting list/panel remained valid up to March 31, 2020. The petitioner argued that the bank erred in initiating a fresh process before this date. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decisions in A.P. Aggarwal Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. (2000) and R.S. Mittal Vs. Union of India (1995).
Per contra, the counsel for the respondent bank argued that the panel for F.Y. 2019-20 expired on March 31, 2020. It was submitted that the twelve posts determined for F.Y. 2019-20 were duly filled by candidates higher in merit than the petitioner. The bank asserted that the petitioner had no vested right to claim promotion merely based on his position in the waiting list. Furthermore, since the petitioner chose not to appear for the F.Y. 2020-21 interviews and had taken voluntary retirement, no cause of action survived.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Jhingan examined the relevant regulations of the Promotion Policy. Regulation 2.1 stipulates that the management determines the number of vacancies to be filled on each occasion, taking into account all vacancies likely to arise in the financial year. Regulation 7(vi) provides for the preparation of a supplementary waiting list/panel, which is valid up to March 31st.
The Court noted the admitted position that the twelve vacancies determined for F.Y. 2019-20 were filled by selected candidates, and none remained vacant.
The Court reiterated the settled legal principle that a waiting list operates for a specific contingency. Justice Jhingan observed:
“The law is well settled that the placement of a candidate in a reserve panel shall not create a vested right. The right to be considered arises only in the contingency of selected candidates not joining the posts and the waiting list operates for a limited period.”
The High Court relied on the recent Supreme Court decision in The Union of India and Ors. Vs. Submit Kumar Das (2025 INSC 1235), which held:
“From the aforesaid, it is clear that any right that the respondent could claim as a waitlisted candidate extinguished when all the selected candidates joined on their respective posts.”
Addressing the petitioner’s grievance regarding the timing of the fresh interviews, the Court held that while the waiting list for F.Y. 2019-20 was valid up to March 31, 2020, the interviews conducted by the bank were for the subsequent F.Y. 2020-21. The Court stated:
“The interviews held by the bank for F.Y. i.e. 2020-21 were in consonance with Regulation 2, it had no effect on the supplementary waiting list/panel for the F.Y. 2019-20 inspite of the fact that the interviews for empanelment for F.Y. 2020-21 were held prior to 31.03.2020.”
The Court distinguished the present case from the judgments cited by the petitioner, noting that there was no instance of selected candidates failing to join, nor was the waiting list being arbitrarily bypassed for the same year’s vacancies.
Decision
The Court concluded that the petitioner’s grievance was ill-founded. Since the fresh interviews were for F.Y. 2020-21 and not F.Y. 2019-20, and considering the petitioner chose not to participate in the fresh process, no case for interference was made out.
The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Shri Vijoy Joshi v. Punjab National Bank
- Case Number: W.P.(C) 2478/2020 & CM APPL. 8642/2020
- Coram: Justice Avneesh Jhingan
- Citation: 2025:DHC:11226
