Patna High CourtCWJC/11684/2009dismissed

Alok Kumar v. Union Of India And ORS

2017-03-24Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11684 of 2009 ====================================================== Alok Kumar, son of Shri Ramchandra Prasad, resident of MohallaPulendrapur, Khazanchi Road, P.O. Bankipur, P.S. Pirbahor, District- Patna .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India

2. The Principal Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi

3. The Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Allahabad Bank, Head Office2, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata-700 001(W.B.)

4. The General Manager, Personnel and Administrative, Allahabad Bank, Netaji Subhash Chandra Marg, Kolkata( W.B.) .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Asha Kumari Mr. Sunil Prasad For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay Kr.Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 24-03-2017 Heard Smt. Asha Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the Respondent/Allahabad 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 consider his case for appointment as Clerk in Allahabad Bank on the basis of panel, which was prepared pursuant to an examination held in the year 2008. In the writ petition itself, it has been indicated that after preparation of panel 25 candidates have not joined and, as such, the petitioner wanted that the candidate from the waiting list may

Patna High Court CWJC No.11684 of 2009 (3) dt.24-03-2017 2/2 be accommodated. In paragraph-10 of the writ petition, a categorical statement has been made that a fresh vacancy has been advertised.

Sri Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the Respondent/Allahabad Bank, by way of referring to a Judgment reported in (2013) 12 SCC 243, submits that the petitioner has got no enforceable right.

Considering the facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that though panel was prepared but subsequently a fresh advertisement was published. The life of the panel had come to an end and, as such, no relief can be granted. The writ petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U