Munna Ram v. The Syndicate Bank And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13507 of 2011 ====================================================== Munna Ram S/O Sri Sarbjit Ram R/O Mohalla- Back of Sadar Hospital, P.O. Siwan, P.S.- Siwan, Distt.- Siwan.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Syndicate Bank through its Chairman, Syndicate Bank, Manipal, Karnataka

2. The Senior Manager, Syndicate Bank, Manipal, Karnataka

3. The Manager (Personnel and Administrative) Divisional Morya Lok, Patna.

4. The Branch Manager Syndicate Bank, Siwan

5. Sunil Kumar S/O Surendra Prasad Resident of Vill.- Shital tola, P.O. + P.S. - Ara, District - Ara, at present - Resident of Vill. Babunia Road, P.O. + P.S. + District - Siwan.

.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Tiwary, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 10.

24-10-2016 Heard Sri Shashi Bhushan Singh, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjiv Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/Syndicate Bank.

The petitioner has approached this Court, invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to direct the respondents to produce the appointment letter of respondent no. 5 namely Sunil Kumar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after cancelling the appointment of respondent no. 5, the petitioner may

Patna High Court CWJC No.13507 of 2011 (10) dt.24-10-2016 2/2 be appointed, whereas, in this case, counter affidavit on behalf of Bank has been filed and a stand has been taken that name of respondent no. 5 was incorporated in earlier panel and he had worked from 2001 to 31-01-2006 for about 2028 days and his name was on top of the panel, which was earlier prepared and as such, respondent no. 5 was regularized, whereas, in respect of petitioner, it has been indicated that his name was empanelled after December, 2006.

After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner makes a prayer for disposal of the present petition so that he may avail appropriate remedy before the Bank itself. The writ petition stands disposed of.

It goes without saying that if such petition is filed by the petitioner, the Bank may examine the case of the petitioner in its right perspective.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U