Dismissed

Dilip Kumar Sinha v. Jharkhandgramin Bank Through Its Chairman And Ors.

Jharkhand HC6 Mar 2017WPC/3988/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge Writ Bench dismissed the petitioner's substantial writ petition, holding that a claim for mandatory appointment based on a 1992 panel was devoid of merit, particularly where the petitioner's period of service had long concluded.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as being bereft of merits. No mandatory direction was issued for the petitioner's appointment.

Dilip Kumar Sinha Vs Jharkhandgramin Bank Through… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(S) No. 3988 of 2016

¶4

¶5

Dilip Kumar Sinha, son of Kameshwar Prasad Sinha, Resident of Village Sankh, P.O. Sankh, P.S. Gawan, District-Giridih, Jharkhand, Pin-815313

¶6

..... Petitioner

¶7

--Versus--

¶8

1.Jharkhand Gramin Bank, through its Chairman, having its office at Rajendra Place, 5, Main Road, Ranchi, P.O.-G.P.O., Ranchi, PS:Chutia, District:Ranchi, Jharkhand, Pin-834001

¶9

2.The General Manager, Jharkhand Gramin Bank, having its office at Rajendra Palace, 5, Main Road, Ranchi, P.O.-G.P.O., Ranchi, P.S.:Chutia, District:Ranchi, Jharkhand, Pin-834001

¶10

3.The Regional Manager, Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Giridih Region, having its office at Barganda, Main Road, Giridih, P.O. G.P.O., Giridih, P.S.Muffasil, District:Giridih, Jharkhand, Pin-815301

¶11

4.The Branch Manager, Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Rajdhanwar Branch, having its office at Bara Chowk Rajdhanwar, P.O.+P.S.Rajdhanwar, District-Giridih, Jharkhand, Pin-825412

¶12

…. Respondents

¶13

¶14

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

¶15

¶16

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sahadeo Choudhary, Advocate For Respondent-Bank : Mr. A. Allam, Senior Advocate Ms. Priya Shreshtha, Advocate ---

¶17

5 / 06.03.2017 Heard Mr. Sahadeo Choudary, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A. Allam, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Bank.

¶18

In paragraph no.-7 of the writ-petition, the petitioner claims that he was engaged as part-time Sweeper-cum-Messenger in the year 1986. No date or month in the year 1986, when he allegedly was engaged has been disclosed by the petitioner. He claims that he worked there continuously till 1991. Contrary to this, in his representation dated 15.03.2010 vide Annexure-4, which does not bear receiving from office of the Chairman, Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Ranchi, the petitioner claims that he served the Bank up to 17.08.1992. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits

¶19

¶20

that the petitioner, who worked for 240 days, in terms of an agreement arrived at between the Giridih Kshetriya Gramin Bank and the Employees' Association on 16.07.1992, he is entitled for appointment.

¶21

The petitioner asserts that pursuant to an interview held on 04.08.1991, a panel of eligible 41 candidates was prepared for appointment on the post of Sweeper-cum-Messenger; petitioner's name finds place at Sl.No.22. The list of candidates was published on 22.01.1992. On his own saying (in paragraph no.-11 of the writ-petition) the petitioner pleads that on 15.03.2010, he moved a representation for his appointment on the basis of a panel prepared on 22.01.1992 and the agreement executed between the Bank and the Employees Association on 16.07.1992. From the materials produced on record, it appears that only after the order passed in CWJC) No.2643 of 1992(R) was challenged unsuccessfully in L.P.A. No.360 of 1999(R) and two candidates namely, Sobran Mahto and Khagendra Nath Mahto approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.1711 of 2011 which was disposed of on 06.07.2011, the petitioner rushed to this Court in W.P.(S) No.4345 of 2011. The writ-petition stood disposed of on 09.11.2011.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, who was eligible at the time when the panel was prepared, has been denied appointment on a plea that he was not Class-VIII pass and now, since he has cleared Class-VIII examination, he is entitled for appointment for which he has submitted a fresh representation on 07.04.2014.

¶23

From the facts noticed herein-above, it is apparent that the petitioner, who was included in the panel of 41 Sweeper-cumMessengers, is now seeking appointment on the basis of the said panel. On his own saying, he worked only till 17.08.1992 (Annexure-4). In my opinion, the petitioner has no legal right to seek a mandamus for

¶24

¶25

a direction upon the respondent-Bank for his appointment on the basis

¶26

of panel prepared in the year 1992.

¶27

The writ-petition, bereft of merits, is dismissed.

¶28

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶29

SI/ ,

Dilip Kumar Sinha v. Jharkhandgramin Bank Through Its Chairman And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Kumar Sinha v. Jharkhandgramin Bank Through Its Chairman And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Sukhdeo Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Umesh Rai Cisf No 823460049 Hc Gd Vs the Union of India through Its the Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors.

Dinesh Kumar Sahu and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Md Nazizul Haque Vs Education

Satish Kumar Tiwari Vs Steel Authority Of India Limited Through Its Managing Director And Ors.

Jitendra Kumar Alias Jitendra Thakur Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.