High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/11322/2016

Vijay Kumar v. Bank Of India

2017-07-27Hon'Ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao2 pages

$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11322/2016 VIJAY KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through:

Ms. Deepika Madan and Mr. Shakti Singh, Advs.

versus BANK OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Jagat Arora, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

O R D E R

% 27.07.2017 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

"Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

(i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction thereby directing the Respondent Bank to withdraw the impugned letter dated 30.06.2015 whereby the Respondent Bank has wrongly cancelled the candidature of the Petitioner for the post of Sepoy in the Respondent Bank and direct the Respondent Bank to give employment to the petitioner in the Respondent Bank on the post of Sepoy on the basis of successfully clearing of the interview by the petitioner; and (ii) Pass any other or further relief (s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner."

On the last date of hearing, it was contended by Mr. Jagat Arora, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank that the certificate of the petitioner being of 8th Class is a forged document. Today, Mr. Arora states that respondent is in receipt of a communication from the District Education Officer, Muzaffarnagar stating that on enquiries it was found that the petitioner had studied in Janta Junior High School, Rajpur, Chajpur Budhana, District - Muzaffarnagar.

In view of the aforesaid position, the petition is disposed of by directing the respondent Bank to take a decision on the appointment of the petitioner for the post of Sepoy in the respondent Bank within four weeks from today, under intimation to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter. If the petitioner is still aggrieved with the order to be passed by the respondent / Bank, he shall avail such remedy as available in law. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J JULY 27, 2017/jg