Kalyani Subramanyam, v. Union Of India,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :13.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.P No.24150 of 2013 and M.P.Nos. 2 and 3 of 2013 Kalyani Subramanyam
...Petitioner
Vs.
1. Union of India Rep. By the Secretary, Banking and Finance, M/o.Finance, New Delhi.
2. The Managing Director State Bank of Hyderabad, Head Office, Hyderabad.
3. Mr.George M.Korean, General Manager (CVO) Syndicate Bank, Head Office, Manipal, Karnataka.
..Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the petitioner in the light of Serial No.567 Circular No.PER/ 2012-13/46 1/6
Department of Personnel dated 1.9.2012 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to delete the marks awarded by the third respondent (Reviewing Authority) in the Confidential Reports for the year 2009-2011. For Petitioner : M/s.Balan Haridass.
For Respondents 1 : No appearance For respondents 2 & 3 : Mr.K.Mohan Das
O R D E R
This writ petition is filed challenging the Circular No.PER/ 2012-13/46, Department of Personnel dated 01.9.2012 and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to delete the marks awarded by the 3rd respondent in the Confidential Reports for the year 2009-2011.
2. The petitioner, who was working as Chief Manager in the 2nd respondent Bank, was aspiring to get promotion to the post of Assistant General Manager but found that the name of the petitioner did not find place in the Zone of consideration in respect of the candidates to be considered to the post of Assistant General Manager. At this juncture, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition.
3. When the writ petition is taken up for hearing, the learned Standing 2/6
Counsel appearing for the respondent bank brought to the notice of this Court that in fact pursuant to this writ petition, based on the list prepared containing the list of names coming within the zone of consideration, the selected list was given effect to and the selected persons were given promotion to the post of Assistant General Managers. In fact, the petitioner had come up with another writ petition in W.P.No.17836 of 2014 whereby she challenged the selection list and for consequential direction to draw a list by including the name of the petitioner in the appropriate list and grant promotion. The petitioner had in fact chosen to withdraw the writ petition challenging the selection list and seeking for consequential promotion and this Court by order dated 23.12.2016 had dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn.
4. It is also represented that now the petitioner has already reached the age of superannuation. Once the petitioner given up the claim challenging the selection list and for consequential promotion, the present writ petition seeking to include her name in the zone of consideration no longer survives and the relief sought for in this writ petition has become infructuous. 3/6
5. Recording the submissions of the learned counsel on both sides, the writ petition stands dismissed as infructuous. No costs.
6. It is needless to say that it is open to the petitioner to submit representation to the respondent bank, if she feel otherwise that she is entitled for any other relief.
13.11.2024 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order : Yes/No nr To
1. Union of India Rep. By the Secretary, Banking and Finance, M/o.Finance, New Delhi.
2. The Managing Director State Bank of Hyderabad, Head Office, Hyderabad.
4/6
3. Mr.George M.Korean, General Manager (CVO) Syndicate Bank, Head Office, Manipal, Karnataka.
5/6
G.ARUL MURUGAN , J.
nr W.P No.24150 of 2013 and M.P.Nos. 2 and 3 of 2013 13.11.2024 6/6