Dismissed

Bipin Krishna Singh v. The State Bank Of India and Ors.

Patna HC10 Apr 2014C. REV./203/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Patna disposed of a review application seeking condonation of delay for further review of a Letters Patent Appeal in a bank promotion dispute. The petitioners argued misnaming of terms affected the trial, but the court dismissed the review to resolve the litigation.

What did the court decide?

I.A. No. 3688 of 2013 (request to condone delay) allowed; Petition for review (Civil Review No. 203 of 2013) dismissed.

Bipin Krishna Singh Vs The State Bank Of India and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Review No.203 of 2013 In LPA 1000 of 2012 ====================================================== Bipin Krishna Singh .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Bank of India & Ors. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Sr. Adv. Mr. Akash Chaturvedi, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) 6 10-04-2014 I.A. No. 3688 of 2013 has been filed to condone delay of 7 months and 29 days in filing the review application.

¶3

We have heard counsel for the parties and considered the explanation for delay. The I.A. application is allowed.

¶4

This review application has been filed for review of order dated 16.8.2012 in L.P.A. No. 1000 of 2012. The Letters Patent Appeal in turn arose out of order dated 27.3.2012 in C.W.J.C. No. 3339 of 1999. The writ petition was filed to include the name of the petitioner in the zone of selection for promotion to Senior Manager Grade Scale-V (SMGS-V) with effect from 1.11.1998.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

¶6

Patna High Court C. REV. No.203 of 2013 (6) dt.10-04-2014

¶7

2/3

¶8

that the Special Leave Petition against the order in L.P.A. No. 1000 of 2012 was dismissed in limine and therefore there is no bar to the maintainability of the present review application if the petitioner is able to demonstrate error apparent on the face of the record in the proceedings before this Court. It is submitted that the entire argument of the petitioner was that if reasons not considering him eligible for promotion after assessment were not disclosed to him for improvement, he was entitled to the relief. The Single Judge and the Division Bench proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner had failed to qualify in the interview. The Division Bench itself noticed that in the writ petition, the words “interview” had subsequently been modified by “assessment” after disposal. It is submitted that it was not a simple case of difference in language with regard to the nomenclature but made complete difference to the very materials on basis of which there had been application of mind by the Court to the claims of the petitioner. This, without further more constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record.

¶9

Conversely, counsel for the Bank submitted that MJC No. 2044 of 2012 was filed on its behalf for modification of final order dated 27.3.2012 in C.W.J.C. No. 3339 of 1999 for substituting the words “assessment” in place of “interview”. The application was allowed on 22.6.2012 after hearing the petitioner also. The petitioner had also filed Civil Review No. 181 of 2012 which was dismissed simultaneously

¶10

Patna High Court C. REV. No.203 of 2013 (6) dt.10-04-2014

¶11

3/3

¶12

on 22.6.2012. After dismissal of his SLP, the petitioner had also filed Review Petition (Civil) No. 952 of 2013 before the Supreme Court which was also rejected on 10.12.2012.

¶13

We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the different stages of the litigation, we are satisfied that the matter has to be given a quietus and cannot be permitted to become an unending affair. Further more, the learned Single Judge substituted the words “assessment” after satisfaction that it made no difference to the conclusion arrived at by him on merits as otherwise the prayer would have definitely been rejected as making out an entirely new case.

¶14

The review application is dismissed.

¶15

(Navin Sinha, J)

¶16

(Vikash Jain, J)

¶17

P. Kumar/-

Bipin Krishna Singh v. The State Bank Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bipin Krishna Singh v. The State Bank Of India 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

Chandra Shekhar Azad Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dhirendra Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Uday Singh and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ramji Prasad Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Cum Principal Secretary Commercial Taxes Department Govt Vs Azad Transport Company Pvt. Ltd., Sasaram

The State Of Bihar and Anr. Vs Dr. Banmala and Ors.