JUDGMENT : 1. As common questions of law and facts arise in this group of appeals, all these Letters Patent Appeals are heard, decided and disposed of together by this common judgment and order. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 07.11.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4780 of 2017 and analogous writ petitions, the original writ petitioners as well as the original respondent Bank - Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as U.B.G.B.) have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 3. The facts leading to the present Letters Patent Appeals, in nutshell, are as under: 3.1 That the applications were invited for the posts of “Officer Scale-I” and the post of “Office Assistants” (multipurpose) in the U.B.G.B. 352 vacancies against the post of Officer Scale-I and 820 vacancies against the post of Office Assistants (multipurpose) were notified. 3.2 That all the original writ applicants applied pursuant to the said advertisement. They appeared in the preliminary examination, followed by the main examination which was followed by the process of interview from amongst those who succeeded in the main examination. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the applications were invited in respect of three Banks, namely Bihar Gramin Bank; Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank and Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank. 3.3 That the vacancies in Bihar Gramin Bank and Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank came to be filled in pursuant to the recruitment process. However, so far as the U.B.G.B. is concerned, a decision was taken not to fill up the posts advertised and a notification dated 10th March, 2017 was issued by the Director, Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, in which the vacancy was shown as “0”. 4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the notification dated 10th March, 2017 of the Director, Institute of Banking Personnel Selection declaring the “0” vacancy against the posts of Officer Scale-I and Office Assistants (multipurpose) with respect to the U.B.G.B., the original writ applicants approached this Court by way of these writ petitions. All the writ petitions came to be heard together. 5. It was the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners that once the vacancies were notified and entire recruitment process was over, in that case, thereafter declaring the vacancies as “0” is absolutely illegal and arbitrary. All the writ petitions came to be heard together. 5. It was the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners that once the vacancies were notified and entire recruitment process was over, in that case, thereafter declaring the vacancies as “0” is absolutely illegal and arbitrary. 5.1 It was also submitted that the vacancies were notified on the basis of the information received from the Bank and, in fact, as it was taken that the vacancies for which the advertisement was issued were vacant and only thereafter the vacancies were notified and the recruitment process started, thereafter it was not proper on the part of the Director to declare the vacancy as “0”. 6. The petitions were opposed by the Director. It was the stand taken by the I.B.P.S. that the “nil” vacancy was declared by them insofar as U.B.G.B. is concerned. The same was on the basis of the communication received from the Bank vide the letter dated 13th February, 2017. 6.1 It was the case on behalf of the Bank that the U.B.G.B. and the Board of Directors bona fidely took a decision to obtain the consent of the sponsor Bank, i.e. Central Bank of India, before filling up posts/vacancies and that the Central Bank of India - the sponsor Bank opined not to fill up the posts/vacancies and, therefore, bona fidely it was communicated not to fill up the posts and, therefore, the I.B.P.S. declared the vacancy as “nil”. 6.2 It was also the case on behalf of the respondents that by inviting applications no vested right is created in favour of the applicant and, for bona fide reasons, it is always open for the employer to take a decision not to fill up the posts. Therefore, it was requested to dismiss the petitions. 6.2 It was also the case on behalf of the respondents that by inviting applications no vested right is created in favour of the applicant and, for bona fide reasons, it is always open for the employer to take a decision not to fill up the posts. Therefore, it was requested to dismiss the petitions. 6.3 That by the impugned common judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has partly allowed the writ petitions and quashed and set aside the directions contained in the letter dated 13th of February, 2017 of the General Manager of the U.B.G.B. requiring the I.B.P.S. to declare the vacancy for the selection process in question for the period 2016-17 and, consequently, has directed the authorities of the U.B.G.B. to communicate to the I.B.P.S. the vacancies in Officer Scale-I and Office Assistants (multipurpose) in the tune with the approval granted by the Board of Directors for the period 2016-17 i.e. for the selection process in question. 7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, both the original writ petitioners as well as the U.B.G.B. have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeals. 8. Now, so far as the original writ petitioners are concerned, they have preferred the Letters Patent Appeals challenging the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge insofar as not giving specific directions to the Bank as well as the I.B.P.S. to appoint the respective original writ petitioners on the basis of their merits and, instead, directing the Bank to communicate to the I.B.P.S. the vacancies in Officer Scale-I and Office Assistants (multipurpose) in tune with the approval granted by the Board of Directors for the period 2016-17. i.e. for the selection process in question. 9. Now, so far as the original writ petitioner Bank - U.B.G.B. is concerned, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in quashing and setting aside the direction contained in the letter dated 13th February, 2017 of the General Manager, U.B.G.B. requiring the I.B.P.S. to declare “nil” vacancy for the selection process in question for the period 2016-17, the U.B.G.B. has preferred the respective appeal. 10. We have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 10. We have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective petitioners have vehemently submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly when the learned Single Judge has quashed and set aside the communication/letter dated 13th February, 2017 of the General Manager, U.B.G.B. requiring the I.B.P.S. to declare “nil” vacancy for the selection process in question after having observed that once the recruitment process started and the applications were invited to fill up the posts/vacancies already notified by the Bank communicated to the I.B.P.S., thereafter it was not open for the Bank to communicate to the I.B.P.S. not to fill up the posts/vacancies which as such were vacant and/or notified and that too on the basis of the opinion given by the sponsor Bank i.e. Central Bank of India. 11. It is submitted that as such the vacancies were notified by the Bank to the I.B.P.S. and as such the posts at the relevant time were vacant and only thereafter the vacancies were notified and the applications were invited by the Bank. Thereafter it was not open for the learned Single Judge, and that too having observed and opined that the Bank was not justified in reducing the posts/vacancies to “nil”, to deny the relief rather the learned Single Judge ought to have granted the final consequential relief directing the Bank/I.B.P.S. to appoint the original writ petitioners and others on the vacant posts which were advertised. 11.1 In support of the above submissions, the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective original writ petitioners have vehemently submitted that as such the decision to declare the vacancy “nil” subsequent to the vacancies notified and the recruitment process started is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that even on the principle of “legitimate expectation” also, the subsequent decision to reduce the vacancies to “nil” is bad in law and arbitrary. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners that even the subsequent communication to reduce the vacancy to “nil” is mala fide inasmuch as subsequently the posts in question were filled in the very next year. 11.3 Making above submissions and relying upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bedanga Talukdar Vs. 11.3 Making above submissions and relying upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan and Others, reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85 , K. Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 512 and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Pravesh Singh and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, reported in (2006) 4 PLJR (SC) 222, it is requested to allow the Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the original writ petitioners and, consequently, direct the Bank/I.B.P.S. to appoint the respective original writ applicants. 12. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank-U.B.G.B. has vehemently submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge materially erred in quashing and setting aside the communication/letter dated 13th of February, 2017 issued by the General Manager to the I.B.P.S. to reduce the vacancy to “nil”. 12.1 It is further submitted by Sri Ajay Kumar Sinha that the learned Single Judge did not properly appreciate that as such the communication to the I.B.P.S. notifying the vacancies was subject to the decision of the Board and/or subject to approval of the Board of Directors and even the Board of Directors subsequently took a decision to obtain the approval from the sponsor Bank - Central Bank of India and the Central Bank of India, the sponsor Bank communicated to the U.B.G.B. not to fill up the posts and, therefore, bona fidely and relying upon the advice given by the sponsor Bank, it was communicated to the I.B.P.S. to declare the “nil” vacancy. Therefore, it is submitted that by inviting the applications and making application, no vested right is created in favour of the applicant and it is always open for the employer not to fill up the posts for valid reason. 12.2 It is further submitted by Shri Ajay Kumar Sinha that even subsequently all the posts have been filled up in the year 2017-18 and 2018-19 also and, therefore, as on today, there is not a single post vacant in the cadre of Officer Scale-I and Office Assistants (multipurpose). 13. Making above submissions and relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Lal (D) By Lrs vs Ugrasen (D) By Lrs. 13. Making above submissions and relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Lal (D) By Lrs vs Ugrasen (D) By Lrs. & Ors on 3 June, 2010, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 557 , it is requested to allow the appeals preferred by the Bank-U.B.G.B. and quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge and, consequently, dismissed the appeals preferred by the original writ petitioners. 14. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. 14.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that the dispute is with respect to appointment on the posts of Officer Scale-I and Office Assistants (multipurpose) in the U.B.G.B. for the recruitment year 2016-17. It is true that initially the Bank communicated to the I.B.P.S. the vacancies to be filled in and, consequently, the I.B.P.S. started the recruitment process. However, from the material on record it appears that the vacancies were notified subject to the approval by the Board of Directors. It is emerging from the record that the agenda was placed before the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors thought it fit to get approval of the sponsor Bank - Central Bank of India and the sponsor Bank - Central Bank of India communicated and advised the Bank not to fill up the posts. Relying upon such an advice, the General Manager communicated to the I.B.P.S. not to fill up the posts and, consequently, the vacancies notified were reduced to “nil”. Therefore, it was a bona fide decision by the Bank not to fill up the posts for which the recruitment process started. As per the catena of judgments, inviting the applications and making the applications does not confer any right in favour of the applicant of appointment and it is always open for the employer not to fill up the posts advertised, for a valid reason. As per the catena of judgments, inviting the applications and making the applications does not confer any right in favour of the applicant of appointment and it is always open for the employer not to fill up the posts advertised, for a valid reason. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, the Bank notified the vacancies subject to approval of the Board of Directors and on the basis of advice of the sponsor Bank - Central Bank of India not to fill up the posts, the Bank - Board of Directors took a decision not to make any appointment for which the posts were advertised and, consequently, the General Manager communicated to the I.B.P.S. not to fill up the posts and, therefore, the vacancies were reduced to “nil”. Therefore, when a decision was taken bona fidely and, as observed hereinabove, there is no vested right in favour of the applicant, the learned Single Judge has materially erred in quashing and setting aside the communication dated 13th of February, 2017 of the General Manager of the Bank to the I.B.P.S. not to fill up the posts and/or to reduce the vacancies to “nil”. 14.2 So far as the reliance placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bedanga Talukdar (Supra) relied upon by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners is concerned, on consideration we are of the considered opinion that the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, there was a relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement subsequent to the advertisement and that too without due application which was found to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the said decision will not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. More particularly, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Manjusree (Supra), relied upon by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners also, shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand as it was a case where the rules were changed subsequent to the advertisement and that, therefore, it was observed that rules of game cannot be changed afterwards. Therefore, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Now, so far as the reliance placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Pravesh Singh (Supra), relied upon by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners is concerned, on facts the said decision shall not be applicable to the controversy in the present Letters Patent Appeals. In the present case, there was no question of “legitimate expectation” as in the advertisement nowhere it is stated that by making application a vested right is created in favour of the applicants and that all the posts advertised shall be filled in. Therefore, on the ground of “legitimate expectation” as contended on behalf of the original writ petitioners, the original writ petitioners shall not be entitled to the relief of appointment. 14.3 At this stage, it is required to be noted that it has come on record that in the subsequent recruitment years i.e. 2017-18 all the posts which were vacant and notified have been filled in. Even for the year 2018-19, the applications are invited to fill up 52 posts of Office Assistants (multipurpose) and 188 posts of Officer Scale-I and, therefore, if any relief is granted to the original writ petitioners who are claiming appointment on the basis of the advertisement issued for the year 2016-17, all those persons are likely to be affected and, as observed hereinabove, as such all the posts which were vacant in the year 2016-17 have been filled in at the relevant year and at that time the original writ petitioners did not challenge the same. Even the subsequent advertisement for 2018-19 has also not been challenged. Therefore, on the basis of the subsequent development also, the original writ petitioners are not entitled to any relief of appointments. 15. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 1730 of 2017, 1693 of 2017, 1643 of 2017, 1691 of 2017, 1692 of 2017, 1727 of 2017, 1782 of 2017, 1851 of 2017, 1853 of 2017 and 278 of 2017 preferred by original writ petitioners deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. The Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the U.B.G.B. being L.P.A. Nos. 1730 of 2017, 1693 of 2017, 1643 of 2017, 1691 of 2017, 1692 of 2017, 1727 of 2017, 1782 of 2017, 1851 of 2017, 1853 of 2017 and 278 of 2017 preferred by original writ petitioners deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. The Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the U.B.G.B. being L.P.A. Nos. 1711 of 2017, 1712 of 2017, 1713 of 2017, 1714 of 2017, 1716 of 2017, 1717 of 2017, 1721 of 2017, 1722 of 2017, 1723 of 2017, 1724 of 2017 and 1725 of 2017 are hereby allowed. The impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge passed in writ applications and other allied applications is hereby quashed and set aside. 16. All the Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of.