R. A. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) IN 1978 the petitioner was appointed as Field Assistant in Rural Bank Scheme of State Bank of India and was posted in Gorakhpur Kshetria Gramin Bank, Gorakhpur. In 1979 the Banking services Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred to as Board) invited applications for the post of assistants in some of the banks including the State Bank of India. The petitioner applied in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement and was finally selected on the basis of written examination and interview held in that connection. The Board thereafter informed the respondent no. 2, about the selection of the petitioner. After the petitioner was selected and intimation to that effect was sent by the Board to the Respondent No. 2, the petitioner asked Kshetriya Gramin bank Gorakhpur for relieving him so as to enable him to join the State Bank of India in pursuance of the selection by the Board and in that connection the petitioner submitted his resignation which was duly accepted by the Kshetriya Gramin Bank and he was relieved on december 17, 1981. A release certificate was accordingly issued by the Kshetriya Gramin Bank to the petitioner, copy of which has been filed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. However, even after the petitioner has resigned he was not permitted to join his duties. He made representation in that connection, but there was no response from the State Bank Authorities. The petitioner has accordingly filed this writ petition for commanding the respondents to hand him over the letter of appointment and permit him to work as Assistant in the office of the State Bank of India, gorakhpur. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has made four submissions, namely, (i) Respondents No. 2, and 3 having issued the appointment letter to the petitioner in pursuance of his selection by the board, it is not open to them to cancel it; (ii) production of the satisfactory release certifcate from previous employer is not a condition precedent for joining the duties; (iii) the petitioner having produced release certificate from previous employer, is entitled to be appointed by the state Bank; and (iv) The Kshetriya Gramin Bank has not held the petitioner guilty of any misconduct in as much as only the alleged enquiry was said to be pending when release certificate was issued and on this ground the petitioner cannot be refused the appointment. ( 3 ) IN paragraph 8 of the writ petition the petitioner has stated that the letter of appointment No. 40/491 dated November 9, 1981, copy of which has been filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition, has been issued to him after his selection by the Board and on that basis it has been argued that it is not open to the respondents to cancel his appointment. The submission is misconceived and cannot be accepted. Annexure 2, which is alleged to be the letter of appointment neither bears the date nor the number, although its number and date have been mentioned in para 8 of the writ petition. But that letter No. 40/491 dated November 9, 1981 is a letter from the Regional Office of State Bank of India, Varanasi to its Branch Manager, Gopiganj, copy of which has been filed as Annexure 2 to the counter-affidavit. By this letter the Branch Manager has been informed about the selection of the Assistants including the petitioner who have been required to be appointed on six months probation on usual terms and conditions, subject to medical fitness, satisfactory release certificate etc. Along with this letter copy of the draft letter of appointment of the petitioner was also enclosed. In para 8 of the counter-affidavit it has been mentioned that annexure 2 to the writ peititon was in fact copy of the draft letter which was enclosed with the aforesaid letter dated November 9, 1981 and is not the appointment letter which is said to have been issued to the petitioner. It has also been mentioned in the counter-affidavit that no appointment letter was ever issued to the petitioner. These allegations made in the counter-affidavit have not been denied in the rejoinder affidavit by the petitioner. If the appointment letter has not been issued the question of its cancellation does not arise. ( 4 ) THE second plea also cannot be accepted. From perusal of the letter dated November 9, 1981 (Annexure 2 to the counter- affidavit) the Regional Office of the State Bank of India, Varanasi has directed the Branch Manager of Gopiganj to complete the formalities metioned from para 2 (a) to 2 (h) of that letter. Para 2 (d) requires the production of satisfactory release certificate from the past/present employer of the candidate, in case he was previously employed. Para 2 (d) requires the production of satisfactory release certificate from the past/present employer of the candidate, in case he was previously employed. Production of satisfactory release certificate is one of the first seven formalities which are required to be completed before the candidate is allowed to join his duties. Production of the satisfactory release certificate is as such a condition precedent and unless it is produced the selected candidate (cannot) join his duties. ( 5 ) IN response to the query made by the State Bank, the Kshetriya Gramin Bank vide its letter dated April 14, 1982 informed the State Bank about certain complaints and confidential letters against the petitioner, copies of which were enclosed, regarding which the enquiry was being conducted. After receipt of the aforesaid letter from Kshetriya Gramin Bank, the State Bank, vide its letter dated June 14, 1982, advised its Branch Office not to appoint the petitioner. It is true that the release certificate does not contain any such allegation against the petitioner. But the employer is not precluded from making enquiry about the work and conduct of a person who is to be appointed. Selection of a candidate does not confer on him irrevocable right to the appointment. Even after selection has been made, if the employer finds that the work and conduct of the selected candidate is not satisfactory and he is not a desirable person to be appointed, it is open to him not to appoint such person. ( 6 ) IN its reply to the letter of the State Bank of India, Kshetriya Gramin Bank has merely referred to certain complaints and confidential letter against the petitioner, regarding which the enquiry was said to be in process. But the release certificate, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition, does not contain any such allegation against the petitioner. It has also not been brought on record as to whether the enquiry which was being conducted by the Gramin bank against the petitioner has been concluded and if concluded, what is the result. Although it is open to an employer not to appoint a person though selected, if he is found to be undesirable, but before the employer takes a decision of not appointing the selected candidate, he must be sure that the man who has been selected is really undesirable. Although it is open to an employer not to appoint a person though selected, if he is found to be undesirable, but before the employer takes a decision of not appointing the selected candidate, he must be sure that the man who has been selected is really undesirable. Such a decision should not be taken merely on the basis of certain complaints regarding which enquiry is being conducted but has not been finalised. In the instant case the State Bank has decided not to appoint the petitioner and withdrew the offer of appointment extended to him merely on the basis of certain complaints and confidential letters, without waiting for the decision of the enquiry. ( 7 ) THE petitoiner, in order to join the State Bank of India in pursuance of his selection by the board, has resigned from Kshetriya Gramin Bank, which was duly accepted and thereafter he was given the release certificate. Although the petitioner has resigned from his previous job, he has not been issued appointment letter by the State Bank. The result is that the petitioner has been rendered jobless and has become un-employed. He cannot remain in the Kshetriya Gramin bank because he has already resigned and his resignation has been accepted. He cannot work in the State Bank because he has not been given the appointment letter. The selection of the petitioner for the post of Assistant in the State Bank has turned out to be a curse for him. In all fairness the respondents should have informed the petitioner about issuing the appointment letter only after making necessary inquiry about his antecedents. Such an information would have prevented the petitioner from submitting resignation to the Gramin Bank. In fact from perusal of letter dated November 9, 1981 (Annexure-2 to the counter-affidavit) it is clear that only first seven formalities were required to be completed before a selected candidate is allowed to join his duties. Verification of character and antecedent of the selected candidate is not one of the first seven formalities. The petitioner having received his release certificate from the Gramin Bank, must have been sure about getting the appointment letter from State Bank and it is on that basis that he gave-up his earlier job. Verification of character and antecedent of the selected candidate is not one of the first seven formalities. The petitioner having received his release certificate from the Gramin Bank, must have been sure about getting the appointment letter from State Bank and it is on that basis that he gave-up his earlier job. The State Bank not only failed to inform the petitioner about not appointing him till inquiry about his antecedents is completed, but also did not communica te its decision of not appointing him at all. The representations made by the petitioner in that connection remained unanswered. In fact the petitioner came to know about the Banks decision of not appointing him only through the counter-affidavit which was filed by it in this writ petition. The right of the employer not to appoint the selected candidate is to be exercised in a fair and reasonable manner so as not to cause irreparable loss to a person who has already been selected. The conduct of the State Bank in not informing the petitioner about its decision of not appointing him well in time, is highly unfair and unjustified. It is because of this conduct of the state Bank that the petitioner has suffered irreparable loss and has become un-employed. For this situation the State Bank is responsible. ( 8 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons the action of the State Bank cannot be sustained. The writ petition is accordingly partly allowed with costs. The Respondents No. 2 and 3 will consider afresh the question of appointing the petitioner in their Bank and for that purpose they may, if they like, obtain the enquiry report from the Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Gorakhpur, the reference of which has been made in its letter dated April 14, 1982, addressed to the Personnel Manager (Personnel department) State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Kanpur. It will be open to the petitioner to place such material as he may choose before the Respondents No. 2 and 3, who will take the decision about the petitioners appointment in their Bank within a period of three months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of this order. The order so passed shall be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter. .