Money & Banking

Unfilled vacancies: Reserve list candidates seek relief from banks, not testing body

Vinson Kurian Thiruvananthapuram | Updated on January 09, 2018 Published on November 13, 2017

40 candidates on the list for the post of probationary officers have been ‘refused’ employment till date

A common rejoinder filed by candidates in the reserve list of the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) has clarified that they are seeking relief essentially from a group 22 respondent public sector banks, and not the IBPS per se.

The IBPS had contended that it is a mere test-conducting agency; it neither creates nor fills up vacancies in banks. The decision on whether or not to allot candidates from the reserve list is to be taken by the latter alone, it said.

The case relates to a group of 40 candidates on the reserve list for the post of probationary officers for 2016-17 who have been ‘refused’ employment till date despite having a ‘huge number of non-joining vacancies’ in the banks.

The latter, the petitioners said, are aware that there are unfilled vacancies.

The filling of these vacancies would provide jobs to the petitioners who have been selected on the basis of due and valid process.

But the banks did a great disservice to their cause by notifying another examination without caring to fill around 1,400 vacant/unfilled seats ignoring the waiting/reserve list.

They were kept in the dark for over one year as to the exact number of vacancies generated due to non-joining of candidates.

It was obligatory on the banks’ part to disclose how many vacancies are available for accommodation from the reserve list.

“This was not done and the final waiting list/reserve list was published only on the last date of expiry of the validity of the waiting list/reserve list,” the petitioners said.

It may be recalled that earlier the IBPS had said in a ‘limited affidavit’ that results of the common written examination conducted by it during a year are valid only for the subsequent financial year, and not in perpetuity.

The petitioners argued that if available vacancies are exhausted without giving waiting list/reserve candidates a due look-in, the entire act on the part of the respondent banks is per se illegal, bad in law, and needs to be quashed and set aside.

Some of the petitioners belonged to OBC, SC and ST categories and some others feared getting age-barred soon. One other candidate had quit his existing job on seeing his name in the selected list.

Published on November 13, 2017
This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor