Ram Lakhan Prasad v. The Central Bank Of India and Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioner challenged a public notice inviting applications for posts, arguing that previous orders in his favor were not implemented. The Court held that non-implementation warrants contempt proceedings but does not restrain fresh selection.
What did the court decide?
Application dismissed as misconceived, finding no ground to restrain fresh selection process.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5784 of 2013
====================================================== Ram Lakhan Prasad S/o Sri Ganauri Gope, R/o village- Dharampur, P.S.Ekangarsarai, District- Nalanda.
.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Central Bank Of India through the General Manager, Chandra Mukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai 2. The Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India, 2nd floor, Murya Lok Complex, Patna 3. The Chief Manager (Personnel) Central Bank of India, 2nd Floor, Murya Lok Complex, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : M/s. Neetu Jha, Advocate i For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate
.... .... Respondent/s
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER
2 10-04-2013 Heard the parties.
The petitioner, in the present proceeding under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the validity of public notice dated 31.10.2012 published in the daily Hindi newspapers “Prabhat Khabar” (Annexure-10), whereby the respondent Central Bank of India has invited applications from eligible candidates for fresh appointment on Class-IV posts. Challenge by the petitioner to the aforesaid public notice (Annexure-10) is primarily on the ground that certain orders passed in CWJC No. 212 of 1997 as also in MJC No. 2279 of 2002 are not being carried out by the respondent-Bank and its functionaries.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can restrain the Respondent-Bank from undertaking a fresh selection process for vacant posts on the ground that previous orders in favour of the petitioner are not being impleme
What remedy is available to a petitioner when orders passed under Article 226 are not being implemented by the authority.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Ram Lakhan Prasad
- respondent
The Central Bank Of India
Coram
BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court