← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/6343/2012dismissed

Lalan Kumar v. The Central Bank Of India And Or

2024-04-01Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6343 of 2012 ====================================================== LALAN KUMAR S/O Sri Shyam Narayan Paswan R/O Moh-Chitkohra Nahar Par (Ambedkar Chowk), P.O.-Anisabad, P.S.-Gardanibagh, Town And District-Patna, Presently Residing In The House Of Late Yogendra Paswan, Mohalla-Mithanpura, P.O.-Ramna, Pani Tank Chowk, P.S.-Mithanpura, Town And District-Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA through its Chairman. 2.

The Chairman, Central Bank Of India 3.

The Assistant General Manager (Human Resources) Central Bank Of India Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 having their Office At Central Office, 'Chandramukhi', Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 4.

The Regional Manager, Central Bank Of India, Regional Office, Muzaffarpur 5.

The Regional Manager, Central Bank Of India, Regional Office, Darbhanga. 6.

The Chief Manager, Central Bank Of India, Zonal Office 'Pawapuri-Vihar' Bhagwanpur Chowk, Muzaffarpur 7.

The Branch Manager, Central Bank Of India, Paharpur Branch, At and P.O.- Paharpur, Distt-Vaishali 8.

The Branch Manager, Central Bank Of India, Rahua Sangram Branch, Rahua Sangram, Distt-Madhubani ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajiv Nayan Singh, Advocate : Mr. Murlidhar Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent Bank:

Mr.Ajay Kumar Sinha, Sr.Advocate : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Advocate : Ms.Mina Kumari, Advocate : Ms. Dilkash Khan, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 01-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents-Bank.

2. This writ application has been filed for a direction upon the respondents-Bank to consider the case of the petitioner for his recruitment/appointment against the post of 'SAFAI

Patna High Court CWJC No.6343 of 2012 dt.01-04-2024 2/3 KARAMCHARI'-cum-Sub-Staff in any Branch, Central Bank of India in terms of letter dated 11.11.2011 (Annexure-1) of the writ application.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to an advertisement issued on 17.10.2012 (Annexure-8) the petitioner had applied for the post in question and the respondent Bank had issued an interview letter to the petitioner (Annexure-9). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of the issuance of the interview letter and he has participated in the selection process, despite of that, till date, result has not been published by the respondent Bank.

4. Learned counsel for the Bank has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that the process of selection was started in various regions including the Zonal Office, Muzaffarpur and the authority has given opportunity to the petitioner and other similarly situated like persons to participate in the selection process. Learned counsel for the Bank further submits that the selection process was cancelled by the competent authority and some of the aggrieved persons have challenged the same in CWJC No.19524 of 2014 which was allowed vide order dated 24.11.2015 directing the respondent-Bank to issue an appointment letter to the petitioners within a period of eight weeks. The order of

Patna High Court CWJC No.6343 of 2012 dt.01-04-2024 3/3 the learned Single Judge was challenged in LPA No.449 of 2016 which was allowed in favour of the Bank vide order dated 29.11.2016 by which the LPA Court has set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and finally the matter was travelled to the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide SLP (c) No.(s)22164 of 2017 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the SLP (c) No. (s)22164 of 2017 vide order dated 06.02.2019 holding that no case is made out for interference. Learned counsel for the Bank further submits that in view of the aforesaid, no case is made out for interference in the present matter and apart from that the petitioner has not challenged the cancellation order for process of selection and he has come before this Court for direction upon the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner in terms of Annexures-1 and 7.

5. In view of the aforesaid, no case is made out for interference by this Court as the ground that the selection process has been cancelled by the Bank. There is no merit in the writ application. It is accordingly, dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Nitesh/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 05.04.2024 Transmission Date NA