The High Court dismissed a writ petition by a petitioner claiming Scheduled Caste status and employment as a sweeper since 2001, who sought appointment. The court found no evidence in annexures to support the claim of sweeper employment.
Dismissal of the writ petition seeking direction for appointment as a sweeper.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (S) No. 3745 of 2011
Lakhan Paswan, son of Sahdeo Paswan, Resident of – village Bokchomma, P.O. – Edla, P.S. – Simaria, District – Chatra, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner
Versus
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
Through Video Conferencing
06/14.02.2022
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Harsh Chandra is present.
2. Learned senior counsel for the respondent(s) Mr. A. Allam along with Mr. Fahad Allam is also present.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who is a member of scheduled castes category has been working in the post of sweeper in Simaria Branch of Bank of India since 2001 and thereafter, pursuant to advertisement dated 24.06.2010, the petitioner had also applied, but nobody was appointed. He also submits that the interview was taken in the month of January, 2011, but ultimately nobody was selected. In order to substantiate his case that he has been working at Simaria District in the Bank since 2001, he has referred to Annexure-2. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner was eligible and the petitioner ought to have been appointed by the respondents, but having not been appointed, the petitioner has moved this Hon’ble Court.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer and has submitted that from perusal of Annexure-2, it does not
2
reflect that the petitioner was ever working as sweeper in the bank, rather it reflects that the petitioner has been helping the bank in recovery of some loan. The learned counsel submits that the present writ petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same may be dismissed.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of Annexure-2 to the writ petition, this Court finds that the same does not indicate that the petitioner has been working as a sweeper in the Bank from the year 2001. It further appears that the petitioner had participated in the interview pursuant to the advertisement dated 24.06.2010, but ultimately no one was selected.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present writ petition, seeking a direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of sweeper, is devoid of any merit, which is accordingly dismissed.
7. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
8. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed as not pressed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, who claims to be a sweeper since 2001, is eligible for appointment in the post of sweeper under the Scheduled Caste quota.
Lakhan Paswan
The Chairman, Bank of India
The Regional Manager, Bank of India
The Chief Manager, Bank of India
The Branch Manager, Bank of India
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
