Pappu Kumar Vs The Chairman, Bank of India

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent-Bank: Mr. Rupak Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent no.7 : Mr. Ramhriday Prasad, Advocate Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Advocate

¶17

======================================================

¶18

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶19

Date : 17-02-2025

¶20

The appellant has challenged the judgment of

¶21

the learned Single Judge dated 29.11.2022 passed in

¶22

CWJC No.20504 of 2019 whereby his prayer for being

¶23

considered for regularisation has been rejected.

¶24

Patna High Court L.P.A No.21 of 2023 dt.17-02-2025 2/4

¶25

The contention of the appellant is that in fact

¶26

he had raised several issues before the learned Single

¶27

Judge, one being to absorb him in regular service whereas the other was that respondents No.5, 6 and 7 were wrongly selected even when they did not qualify for being considered.

¶28

It appears from the records as also from the counter affidavit of the Bank of India filed in the writ proceedings that age relaxation was given to daily wagers for regular appointment of Sepoy/Safai Karmchari. The appellant also was given age relaxation and he had appeared in the interview but had obtained much less marks than the last of the selected candidate in SC category.

¶29

With respect to the assertion of the appellant that respondents No.5, 6 and 7 did not qualify for being considered, it was the contention of the Bank that according to the Memorandum of Settlement, the appointment process had to take in people from open

¶30

Patna High Court L.P.A No.21 of 2023 dt.17-02-2025 3/4

¶31

market as also the daily wagers working in the Bank.

¶32

The allegation against respondents No.5, 6

¶33

and 7 have been specifically answered in the aforenoted counter affidavit, viz., that Manoj Paswan (respondent No.6) had worked for 240 days in the Bank from 15.01.2011 to 22.10.2012 which was reflected from the certificate issued by the Bank branch. Thus, he too was given age relaxation as per the Memorandum of Settlement dated 25.06.2013.

¶34

With respect to Md. Tanveer (respondent No.7), it was averred that he was selected from the open channel on account of his merit in the interview.

¶35

The accusation of the appellant with respect

¶36

to Deepak Kumar (respondent No.5) is that he was selected after being shown undue favour because of his brothers employed in the Bank.

¶37

The aforenoted allegation has also been rebutted by the Bank stating that no favour was shown to him and that, in fact, he obtained qualifying marks in his

¶38

Patna High Court L.P.A No.21 of 2023 dt.17-02-2025

¶39

4/4

¶40

category and, therefore, was appointed.

¶41