Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJU RAM AND OTHERS versus DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Raju Ram And Others v. Deputy General Manager And Others - WRIT - A No. 52048 of 1999 [2005] RD-AH 5229 (7 November 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Vikram Nath J.

By means of this petition, the petitioner is claiming appointment pursuant to the impanel list made by the Bank in the year 1989 for appointment of Class IV employees. It is admitted case that the name of the petitioners find place at Sl. No. 56,58, 75 and 61 respectively in the list which has been annexed with counter affidavit filed by the Bank. It is also admitted  case that no person mentioned in the list below the position of the petitioner has been given appointment. The ground taken in para 8 of the petition that Abdul Kareem and Vinod Kumar who were junior to the petitioners have been given appointment  has been denied in counter affidavit. It has been explained in para 10 and 11 to the counter affidavit that Abdul Kareem belong to previous select list of  1985 and Vinod Kumar was at Sl. No.21  in the list of 89 and therefore, the claim of the petitioner that they were junior and had been appointed does not appear to be correct. Secondly the impanel list  was of 1989 and the petitioners approached this Court in 1999  claiming  appointment. There is no explanation for this delay  of ten years. Petition is therefore, seriously barred by delay and latches. Thirdly the bank in its counter affidavit has relied upon its Circular  dated 7.6.99 filed as Annexure CA-2  wherein under direction of the Central Government the policy decision was taken to fix the life span of  the select list for a period of one year or till preparation of the next recruitment list which ever is earlier and also to scrap all the previously prepared panel lists. There is no apparent infirmity in such a policy decision taken by the Bank and that too on the direction of the Central Government. The petitioners name only finds place in impanel list and admittedly they were not given appointment. As such they have no right to claim the appointment and that too after 10-15 years.

Petition is accordingly dismissed.

Dt.7.11.2005

Hsc/52048/1999


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.