JUDGMENT : P.S. Sahay, J. All these applications have been heard together because common points are involved and will be governed by this common JUDGMENT :; 2. The petitioners have prayed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the decisions and also the appointment of persons to the ministerial posts in the nationalised banks and further for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to appoint the petitioners who were successful at the time of the interview for the appointment in the nationalised Banks. 3. In ORDER :to appreciate the points raised in these applications, it will be necessary to refer to certain facts. There was an advertisement for the appointment of Cashier, Clerk-cum Cashier, Godown Keeper, Clerk-cum-Godown Keeper and other allied clerical posts in 20 nationalised banks on 30.6.1982 which was published in the Indian Nation by the Banking Services Recruitment Board (Eastern Group) (hereinafter to be referred to as B.S.R.B.) and the applications were invited for the States of Bihar, West Bengal, Orissa, Sikkim and Andaman Nikobar Island and there were 1713 vacancies in the State of Bihar. A copy of the said advertisement has been filed and marked Annexure-1. The petitioners appeared at the examination which was held on 8.5.1983 and results were declared on 24.10.1983 and 28.10.1983. A copy of the result, so declared, has been filed and marked Annexure-2 series. The successful candidates were interviewed from 28.10.1983 to 1.11.1983 and some of them were appointed on the basis of the merit list prepared and also absorbed in the nationalised banks. 4. The State Bank of India also advertised for similar posts and advertisement was issued on 19.4.1982 by the Regional Recruitment Board (hereinafter to be referred to as the R.R.B.) for 960 vacancies for different branches in the State of Bihar. A copy of the advertisement has been filed and marked Annexure-3. Written examinations were held from 12th to 19th September, 1982 and the results ,were published on different dates i.e. 3.1.1983, 18.2.1983, 21.3.1983 and 12.5.1983 in the Indian Nation, Patna and in all 3177 candidates were declared to be successful and out of them 969 were appointed and posted in different banks. Written examinations were held from 12th to 19th September, 1982 and the results ,were published on different dates i.e. 3.1.1983, 18.2.1983, 21.3.1983 and 12.5.1983 in the Indian Nation, Patna and in all 3177 candidates were declared to be successful and out of them 969 were appointed and posted in different banks. The petitioners then later came to know that some vacancies in the nationalised banks were filled up from the panel prepared by R.R.B., which was in dear contravention of the rules and there were two different standards by the two recruitment boards. The petitioners waited for their appointments in the vacancies which had occurred in the nationalised banks, but no letter was issued to them; rather those who were in the panel of R.R.B. were drafted. The petitioners, therefore, have moved this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Notice was issued to• some of the respondents and by ORDER :dated 20.3.1986 the respondents were restrained from appointing persons in the nationalised banks in the State of Bihar from the R.R.B. list. 6. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of B.S.R.B. (respondent nos. 1 and 2), Bank of India (respondent no. 3), Punjab National Bank (respondent No.5), Bank of Baroda (respondent No.8), United Bank of India (respondent no. 17) and R.R.B. (respondent No. 24). In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2, it has been asserted that in absence of the persons appointed, the writ application was not maintainable and the allegations made in the petitions were all vague and there was no assertion that the petitioners had also qualified for the posts for which examination was held by the B.S.R.B, and a panel of 3200 candidates was prepared. It has also been stated that though the vacancy was only for 1713 posts, actually 2866 persons were taken from that and, therefore, the petitioners could not make any grievance in absence of any specific proof that they were also in the panel. It has been admitted that the appointments were made in the nationalised Banks from the panel prepared by the R.R.B. because the examination which was held by B.S.R.B. could not be completed and the examination and interview was held in 1983 as per the advertisement made by annexure-1. It has been admitted that the appointments were made in the nationalised Banks from the panel prepared by the R.R.B. because the examination which was held by B.S.R.B. could not be completed and the examination and interview was held in 1983 as per the advertisement made by annexure-1. There was a pressing demand from the different nationalised banks for filling up the posts of the Clerks and others because the work of the Banks was suffering. In that connection a meeting of the 20 nationalised banks, the B.S.R.B. (Eastern Group). Calcutta Central Recruitment Board (S.B.I. Group) 'Bombay, R.R.B. (S.B.I. Group) Calcutta and the N.I.B.M. was held on 18.5.1983 under the Chairmanship of the Joint Secretary (Banking Division), Ministry of Finance in ORDER :to assess the actual vacancies in the 20 nationalised banks upto the end of the year 1982 and to take steps for filling up the vacancies in view of the fact that the work of these banks was suffering. There it was decided that the total requirement in the Eastern Region was about 6700 and R.R.B., Calcutta was in a position to allot 150 candidates out of the waiting list and by July 1983, R.R.B. will further provide 1000 candidates to those nationalised banks. Similarly, R.R.B. Patna and Bhubneshwar were also expected to provide 300 candidates each to the nationalised banks in the State of Bihar and Orissa by July, 1983. A copy of the letter dated 18.5.1983 issued by the Ministry of Finance has been filed and marked Annexure-A. In view of that decision, the panel of the candidates who had appeared and interviewed by the B.S.R.B. was not ready and actually the list was prepared in January, 1984 and according to the decision taken on 18.5.1983, 837 candidates were taken from the panel of R.R.B. and were deputed to different banks. Bank of India (respondent No.3) was allotted 337, Punjab National Bank (respondent no. 5) 100, Bank of Baroda (respondent no. 8) 42 and United Bank of India (respondent No. 17) 73 candidates. Thus, the appointments were made in the nationalised Banks from the panel of R.R.B. and there was no question of any malafide on the part of the appointing authorities. 7. 5) 100, Bank of Baroda (respondent no. 8) 42 and United Bank of India (respondent No. 17) 73 candidates. Thus, the appointments were made in the nationalised Banks from the panel of R.R.B. and there was no question of any malafide on the part of the appointing authorities. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by the different Banks, it has been clearly mentioned that due to the increase in the volume of their work they were in urgent need of extra hands and for that they had written to the authorities to make appointments so that the work of the Bank may not suffer and in pursuance of the decision by the Committee headed by the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Finance, these appointments were made. 8. Reply to the counter affidavits had been filed on behalf of the petitioners and also the rejoinder thereto and it has been reiterated that the decision by the Ministry of Finance could not take away the right of these petitioners who had applied and were interviewed for the appointment in the nationalised banks and they were the only eligible persons to be absorbed by the nationalised banks and not those who had applied for the appointment by the R.R.B., which was meant for the State Bank of India and its subsidiary banks. It has also been asserted that papers have been suppressed by the respondents which would have shown that the petitioners were the only persons competent to be absorbed by the nationalised banks and from the panel of P.S.R.B. alone. It may be mentioned that some persons also filed application to intervene in this case and it was ORDER :ed that they should be heard at the time of final hearing. 9. Mr. Basudeo Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in all the cases, has submitted that in view of the terms and conditions laid down in the advertisement as contained in Annexure 1 all the candidates had qualified for the posts and declared to be successful and their names having appeared in annexure-2 were entitled to appointment upto April, 1985. Secondly, he has submitted that there was an advertisement by R.R.B. and for the vacancies in the nationalised banks, no person from the panel of R.R.B. could be appointed and a complete bar had been put on such appointments after the advertisement which was done on 30.6.1982. Secondly, he has submitted that there was an advertisement by R.R.B. and for the vacancies in the nationalised banks, no person from the panel of R.R.B. could be appointed and a complete bar had been put on such appointments after the advertisement which was done on 30.6.1982. Mr. J. Krishna, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 17 has laid great stress on the meeting held by the officers of the different nationalised banks under the Chairmanship of the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Banking Division in ORDER :to assess the actual vacancies in different branches of the 20 nationalised Banks upto the end of December and to consider in what manner these vacancies will be filled up in view of the pressing demands by different Banks. In the aforesaid meeting it was decided to allot candidates from the R.R.B. list to different banks as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit so that the work of the nationalised Banks may not suffer. On this basis, appointments were made in different nationalised banks. He has further submitted that the panel of B.S.R.B. was prepared in January, 1984 and in pursuance of the aforesaid decision by the high powered committee, the appointments were made much earlier. Similar arguments have also been advanced by Mr. K.D. Chatterjee, Mr. I.K. Sharan, Mr. Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for different banks. 10. After hearing the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the pleadings, in my opinion, there is no substance in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners. In pursuance of the advertisement as contained in annexure-1 the petitioners and others had applied and there were only 1713 posts. Subsequently about 1000 more candidates were taken from that list and by that time, the persons who were taken from the R.R.B. list had already joined their respective banks and C.W.J.C. No. 5970 of 1885 was filed on 9.12.1985; much after the appointments were made. The petitioners may not have the knowledge about the same but when about 2800 persons were taken from the B.S.R.B. list against 1713 posts which were advertised, then no grievance can be raised on behalf of the petitioners. The petitioners may not have the knowledge about the same but when about 2800 persons were taken from the B.S.R.B. list against 1713 posts which were advertised, then no grievance can be raised on behalf of the petitioners. Moreover, it is also pleaded on behalf of the contesting respondents that some of the petitioners, were not in the list at all which is disputed by the petitioners and in absence of any material, it is difficult to adjudicate the disputed question of facts by this Court. However, this much is clear that 2800 persons were taken from the list of B.S.R.B. and 1985 candidates were taken from the list of R.R.B. against the announced vacancies of 837 posts. 11. Mr. Prasad then submitted that there were two separate Boards, one for the recruitment of the staff for nationalised banks and the other for the State Bank and its subsidiary banks and the persons of one list could not be appointed in another and this will be in clear violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. But as stated in the counter affidavit by the contesting respondents, it is clear that a policy decision was taken by a high powered committee on 18.5.1983 and in view of the prevailing situation, the candidates had to be drafted for the nationalised Banks from R.R.B. list which was already ready. The action cannot be said to be malafide, as urged by Mr. Prasad that it was only to exclude persons from this State. 12. It was then contended that once advertisement is made and a list of successful candidates was prepared then all the appointments, till the fresh advertisement is made, is to be made from that very list and in support of that reliance has been placed in the case of Indu Bhushan and others v. State of Bihar and others (1984 Lab. I.C., 458). In my opinion, there is no substance in this contention because in that case after the advertisement was made there was a notification by which certain conditions were imposed and it was held to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, because that could not be done in retrospective manner which is not the position in the instant cases. Mr. Mr. Prasad has also drawn our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Nagarajan and others v. State of Mysore and others (A.I.R. 1966 S.K. 1942) where there is a casual observation that if the Government advertises the appointments and the conditions of service of the appointments and makes a selection after advertisement there would be no breach of Article 15 or 16 of the Constitution. It was also held that those who were eligible would be entitled to be considered by the State. This proposition cannot be disputed and the petitioners cannot have any grievance in view of the fact that they had applied for 1713 posts but actually 1000 more candidates were taken from that very list and when there was a vacancy in other nationalised banks and due to pressing demands for more hands by those banks, a decision was taken to take persons from R.R.B. list and at that time B.S.R.B. list had not been finalised. The contention of Mr. Prasad that the petitioners, whose names appeared in the list, were entitled to appointment upto April, 1985 also cannot be accepted because a number of persons had already been appointed and joined from R.R.B. list. The candidates who appeared for R.R.B. examination were in panel much before the list of B.S.R.B. was prepared. Therefore, when appointments were made in pursuance of the decision taken in May, 1983, the petitioners were not in the panel of B.S.R.B. Thus, they cannot have any legal right to challenge the appointments made from the panel of R.R.B. Those persons have already joined and have been working and it will not be proper to dislodge them now. For the reasons given above, it is also difficult to accept that unless the entire B.S.R.B. list is exhausted, no appointment can be made for the nationalised banks, is equally without any substance. 13. Thus, I find that there is no merit in these applications and they are accordingly dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs. Application dismissed.