Binesh Kumar Ram, v. Bank Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.25376 of 2019 ====================================================== Binesh Kumar Ram, Son of Late Lakshman Ram, resident of VillageFaridpur Sakra Police Station- Dholi, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Bank of India through its Zonal Manager, Muzaffarpur Zone, Muzaffarpur. 2.

The Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Muzaffarpur Zone, Yamuna Complex, Mithanpura Chowk, Muzaffarpur.

3.

The Deputy Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Muzaffarpur Zone, Yamuna Complex, Mithanpura Chowk, Muzaffarpur. 4.

The Branch Manager, Bank of India, Lagma Branch, Village- Lagma, P.S.- Ghanshyampur, District- Darbhanga.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dr. Binod Kumar Jha, Adv.

Mr. Shailendra Kr. Jha, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Rupak Kumar, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 29-01-2020 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ application has been filed seeking a direction to the officers of the Bank of India, Zonal Office, Muzaffarpur Zone to select the petitioner for his appointment on the post of Safai Karmchari-cum-Sepoy.

3. It is the petitioner's case that the Bank had come out with a notice inviting applications for filling up of 18 posts of Safai Karmchari-cum-Sepoy against which he had applied. He was invited for interview, in which he had participated in August 2019. It is his case that in the result published by the Bank, subsequent to the interview so held, the petitioner's name does not figure.

Patna High Court CWJC No.25376 of 2019(3) dt.29-01-2020 2/2

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that in terms of its own policy of the Bank, causal/ temporary workers, working in various branches/ offices of the Bank were to be given preference in the selection in question and ignoring the said policy of the Bank, the petitioner has not been selected.

5. Be that as it may, on careful perusal of the writ application, I find that the petitioner has not been able to make out any case of discrimination, which would have required this Court's interference in the process of selection.

6. A submission has been made that again the Bank has come out with a fresh notice inviting applications for filling up of similar posts. The petitioner shall be at liberty to participate in the process of selection, if he is otherwise eligible.

7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Bank, which is there on record. However, since no relief can be granted on the basis of pleadings in the writ application, this application is dismissed.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Rajesh/- U