Gurgaon Gramin Bank v. Satish Kumar & ORS

-1HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: March 15, 2017 Gurgaon Gramin Bank .....Appellant

Versus

Satish Kumar and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA 1.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

Yes/No 2.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No.

3.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No .......

Present:

Mr.G.S.Bajwa, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.Harjit Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.1.

........

SURYA KANT, J.

CM-3463-LPA-2016 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 154 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of.

CM-3462-LPA-2016 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 10 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of.

-2LPA-1692-2016 CWP No.22900 of 2012 was filed by respondent No.1-Satish Kumar, challenging the selection result dated 27.10.2012 vide which the private respondents were selected. He further sought a direction for preparation of the fresh selection list and consequently to offer him appointment.

[2] The writ petition has been allowed by learned Single Judge vide order under appeal dated 11.01.2016 with a direction to the appellant-Bank "to prepare a revised selection panel strictly in accordance with law as per the merit obtained by the candidates. The merit of all the candidates in General Category has to be prepared irrespective of the fact that they belong to Other Backward Classes or Scheduled Caste Categories. After making the merit list of General Category for 63 posts, a separate list i.e. 39 posts for Backward Classes and 23 posts for Scheduled Caste Category shall be made and then, offer for appointment shall be made." [3] The appellant-Bank has filed the instant appeal seeking modification of above reproduced directions on the plea that the sole writ petitioner has already been appointed, hence there is no legal necessity to undertake the complete exercise in terms of directions issued by the learned Single Judge.

[4] Upon notice, learned counsel for respondent No.1-writ petitioner has admitted the fact that he has since been appointed. [5] In this view of the matter, we are satisfied that once the sole writ petitioner has got appointment, there is hardly any need for the Bank to

-3reshuffle the entire selection list which would result into unsettling the settled issues. The above reproduced directions issued by the learned Single Judge are accordingly modified and the appeal and the writ petition both are disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. ( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE March 15, 2017 ( SUDIP AHLUWALIA ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No