IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12141 of 2011
======================================================
1. Urmila Devi W/O Late Baldeo Mandal R/O Vill.- Purani Taridih, Bodh
Gaya, P.O. + P.S.- Bodh Gaya, Distt.- Gaya
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Bank Of India Through Its The Zonal Manager, Bihar Zone, Patna
2. The Zonal Manager, Bihar Zone, Patna, Bank Of India
3. The Regional Manager, Patna Region, Bank Of India, Patna
4. The Branch Manager, Bodh Gaya Branch, Bank Of India, Distt.- Gaya
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Deepak Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Braj Nandan Kumar Tiwary
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR
MANDAL
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL)
6 09-11-2011 Heard both sides.
Petitioner approached this Court seeking a direction upon
the respondents to appoint him on the post of Sweeper in the Bank
of India (for short “the Bank”) primarily on the ground that earlier
also a selection process was gone into in which the petitioner was
selected.
The respondent Bank has filed a counter affidavit to
oppose the prayer made in the writ petition. Paragraphs 8, 9 and 10
thereof read as under:
“8. That it is further relevant to mention here that a
fresh guidelines was received from Head Office Vide
IOM No. HO:HR:IRVGK:I-160 dated 08.05.2010. In
terms of revised guidelines, Bank cancelled the earlier
Patna High Court CWJC No.12141 of 2011 (6) 2dt.09-11-2011recruitment process which was initiated vide
advertisement dted 13.06.2009 and initiated a fresh
recruitment process vide Advertisement dated
17.08.2010, wherein higher educational qualification
ceiling was removed. The said advertisement was
again sent to respective District Employment
Exchange and to the branches where the vacancy
existed so that eligible candidates can apply for the
said post. In the said fresh recruitment process, Smt.
Urmila Devi also applied vide her application dated
06.09.2010. In the light of the fresh recruitment
process her application was considered and she was
called for interview on 06.10.2010 along with other
candidates vide letter dated 29.09.2010 of the Bank.
9. That the petitioner appeared for interview on
06.10.2010 as per fresh recruitment process but this
time her name was not recommended by the Interview
Committee and as such she was not selected for the
said post of Safai Karamchari by the Respondent
Bank.
10. Although the interview Board has earlier
recommended her name for appointment but it was not
to be construed to be a letter of appointment because
Bank reserve the right to cancel the candidature of any
applicant before giving final letter of appointment.
Moreover, the aforesaid act of Bank was challenged by
some other petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 12953 of 2010
before the Hon’ble High Court, Patna but the Hon’ble
High Court dismissed the said petition vide its order
dated 03.09.2010 concluding that they do not appear to
be any illegality in the act of Bank in withdrawing the
earlier advertisement and publishing fresh
advertisement dated 17.08.2010 deleting the maximum
qualification clause.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that by
virtue of earlier selection process undergone by the respondent
Bank, no vested legal right accrued to her. It has been contended
that the petitioner has sought relevant information from the Bank
Patna High Court CWJC No.12141 of 2011 (6) 3dt.09-11-2011
and awaiting for the same.
Regard being had to the submission of the parties and the
stand taken by the respondent Bank noted above, this Court is not
inclined to accede to the request of the petitioner.
The application is dismissed. It will, however, be open to
the petitioner to seek relevant informations and thereafter pursue
her remedy in accordance with law.
(Kishore K. Mandal, J)
PANKAJ KUMAR/-