JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. These intra court appeals are directed against the common order dated 14.3.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court, whereby he has allowed respondents’ WP (C) Nos. 3781 and 3914 of 2014. 2. The respondents are engaged as Safai Karmachari/Sub-staff in various branches under the three Regional Offices of appellant - Central Bank of India. These offices are Guwahati Regional Office, Upper Assam Regional Office and Barpeta Road Regional Office. 3. On 9.8.2012, the appellant – Bank entered into a Memorandum of Settlement with the All India Central Bank of India Employees Federation (in short “Federation”) wherein it was agreed that as a onetime measure all temporary/casual workers engaged in various branches of the Bank shall be allowed to participate in the recruitment process to be initiated in the immediate future, but not in the subsequent process for selection to the post of “Safai Karmachari cum Sub-staff” and “Sub-staff” on fulltime basis along with fresh candidates subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. 4. The recital of the Memorandum of Settlement states that considering the rapid expansion of the branch network of the Bank coupled with progressive reduction of strength of subordinate staff year after year due to large scale retirements etc. the need for recruitment of subordinate staff was felt. As a prelude to recruitment of subordinate staff, as a pro-employee initiative management converted all the permanent part time Safai Karmacharis in subordinate cadre into full time wages with the designation “Safai Karmachari-cum-Sub-Staff” w.e.f. 1st April, 2011. The Bank decided to recruit the subordinate staff with the designation, “Safai Karmachari-cum-Sub-Staff” and “Sub-staff” by following the due process. Considering the fact that some of the branches had engaged temporary/casual workers in subordinate cadre within the Bank's guidelines, the matter of giving an opportunity to such temporary/casual workers to participate in the recruitment process along with the fresh candidates for selection of “Safai Karmachari-cum-Sub-staff” and “Sub-staff” with a humane approach and also to provide an opportunity to such temporary/casual workers whose cases are sub-judice, to settle their disputes through out of Court mechanism was under discussion between the parties. After a series of discussion, it was agreed by and between the Bank and the Federation that as a onetime measure such temporary/casual workers so engaged by the various branches of the Bank would be allowed to participate in the recruitment process to be initiated in the immediate future but not in the subsequent processes for selection to the post of subordinate staff with the designation “Safai Karmachari-cum-Sub-staff” and “Sub-staff” on full time basis along with fresh candidates subject to fulfillment of the following conditions:- (i) Such temporary/casual workers should have been engaged in subordinate cadre including as Safai Karmachari and should have put in a minimum of 45 days service during a continuous period of 12 months. (ii) Age of the candidate should have been between 18 to 26 years when initially engaged as temporary/casual worker, relaxable in respect of eligible categories as per rules. (iii) Age of the candidate as on the date of the said settlement should not have been more than 45 years irrespective of category. (iv) In case of candidates who had filed cases before Courts or Tribunals seeking permanent absorption in the Bank service and such cases being pending, the candidates were required to unconditionally withdraw such cases prior to applying for participating in the recruitment process. (v) Where there are awards or judgments of any Tribunal or Court directing the Bank to consider any candidate for such absorption, such candidate would be considered and allowed to appear in the interview process initiated pursuant to the settlement irrespective of the age and other eligibility criteria provided under the settlement subject to the only condition that the age of the candidate at the time of interview should not be above 60 years. (vi) Recruitment would be done through personal interview of the eligible candidates by committees to be constituted by the management. 5. Pursuant to the Memorandum of Settlement, the Bank issued advertisements dated 9.11.2012 and 11.11.2012 inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post of “Safai Karmachari cum Sub-staff” and “Sub-staff” in the abovementioned three regional offices. The respondents claiming themselves to be eligible responded to the advertisements by submitting their applications region-wise. Thereafter, interview was held in the three regions on different dates in the months of January and February, 2013. The respondents participated in the interview and thereafter waited anxiously for declaration of result. The respondents claiming themselves to be eligible responded to the advertisements by submitting their applications region-wise. Thereafter, interview was held in the three regions on different dates in the months of January and February, 2013. The respondents participated in the interview and thereafter waited anxiously for declaration of result. But to their dismay, the Bank issued public notices dated 05-07-2014, 06.07.2014 and 08.07.2014 cancelling the recruitment process on the ground that actual Sub-staff strength in certain Branches as well as in certain Zonal Offices was more than the sanctioned strength in respect of those branches and Zonal Offices and therefore, there was no need to recruit any person against the posts advertised. According to the Bank, since the manpower is in excess of the sanctioned strength, a decision was taken to cancel the exercise of recruitment in the three regional offices and this decision was also later approved by the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 21.6.2014. 6. Aggrieved, the respondents rushed to this Court by filing WP (C) Nos. 3781 and 3914 of 2014, which the learned Single Judge has allowed by the impugned order. The learned Single Judge having regard to the Memorandum of Settlement has held that the Bank had no justification to cancel the recruitment process on the ground that there was surplus subordinate staff and directed the Bank to complete the recruitment process initiated pursuant to Memorandum of Settlement without any further delay. It is in this background, the Bank has filed these appeals. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find no merit in the appeals. As seen above, it is clearly stated in the Memorandum of Settlement that as prelude to recruitment of subordinate staff, the management as a pro-employee initiative had converted all the permanent part-time Safai Karmacharis in subordinate cadre into full time wages with the designation “Safai Karmachari-cum-Sub-staff” and “Sub-staff” w.e.f. 01.04.2011 and it was after such conversion, the Bank decided to recruit the subordinate staff with the designation “Safai Karmachari-cum-Sub-staff” and “Sub-staff” and to give an opportunity to the temporary/casual workers working in the Branches in subordinate cadre to participate in such recruitment process with relaxed norms as a onetime measure. It is for this reason, the learned Single Judge has held that cancellation of the recruitment process on the ground that there was surplus subordinate staff as against the sanctioned strength cadre was neither justified nor tenable. We also find no good reason to disagree with the learned Single Judge. Besides this, it is a well settled principle of law that even in cases where there is no legal right, example, for an appointment to oppose even after selection if the government drops the idea, relief can be granted if the decision taken is wholly unreasonable and arbitrary. It is also to be noted that under the Memorandum of Settlement the Bank has lured the workmen who had instituted cases before Courts and Tribunals for their absorption in the service to withdraw their cases unconditionally to entitle them to appear in the recruitment process as a onetime measure. With such conditions, the Memorandum of Settlement was binding on both the parties i.e. Bank and Workmen. The Bank, therefore, could not have unilaterally decided to cancel the recruitment process, which was initiated pursuant to the Memorandum of Settlement. Moreover, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that having regard to the Scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, settlement arrived at between employer and employee is always placed at a higher pedestal than even an award passed after adjudication. 8. The appeals have no merit and are accordingly dismissed.