Sanjay Kumar Das v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7434 of 2016 ====================================================== Sanjay Kumar Das Son of Late Anup Lal Das, resident of village and P.O.- Bandehra, P.S. Paraha, District- Khagariya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Union Of India through the Ministry of Finance, Financial Service Department Jeevan Deep Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Parliament Street New Delhi 2.

The General Manager, Bihar Gramin Bank, H.O.- North HFC Gate, N.H.31, P.O.- P.U. Nagar, District- Begusarai 3.

The Chairman, Bihar Regional Gramin Bank, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Munger Town, District- Munger.

4.

The Branch Manager, Bihar Regional Gramin Bank, Maraiya Branch Bandehra, District- Khagaria.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ram Hriday Prasad, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.S.D Sanjay Addl. Soc. Gen.

For the Bank :

Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 13-10-2023 The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:- "1. That this is an application for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding the Respondents to direct the respondents to reappointment of the petitioner on the post of office attendant as a Daily- wages (Martiprpox) if any and / or pass such other order/orders, direction as your Lordships may deem fit and proper."

2.

At the outset, the learned counsel for the RespondentBank submits, by referring to paragraph no. 8 of the counter

Patna High Court CWJC No.7434 of 2016(2) dt.13-10-2023 2/2 affidavit, filed in the present case that for the purposes of appointment / recruitment as Attendant, the petitioner was called for interview along with other candidates, vide letter dated 4.4.2012, whereafter, he had appeared before the Selection Committee on 25.4.2012, but could not qualify in the selection process, hence, the present writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 3.

Having regard to the facts & circumstances of the case, this Court finds that admittedly, the petitioner had appeared in the interview conducted by the Respondent-Bank, where he could not qualify, hence, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to contend that he should be selected and appointed as Attendant with the Respondent-Bank. Therefore, I find that the present writ petition is bereft of any merit, thus, the same stands dismissed.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Ajay/- U