R T BASAVARAJ Vs. PRAGATHI GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH these petitions are listed in preliminary hearing 'B' group, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, they are disposed of finally.

(2.) THE petitioners were among several candidates who were eligible for taking up the written test to be conducted for the post of Officer Scale-I from Clerk-cum-Cashier post. R-1 Pragathi Gramina Bank into which Chitradurga Gramina Bank came to be amalgamated, issued a notification dated 18.2.2010 (Annexure-A) intimating the eligible candidates about the date of written test and the venue. As per the said notification, the petitioners, being the employees working at the Chitradurga Gramina Bank were to take the examination at SJ.M. Institute of Technology, N.H.4 Bypass, Chitradurga, and in all 229 candidates were to take the written test at the said centre.

(3.) LEARNED counsel Shri Prakash Shetty for the petitioners, referring to the charge-sheet issued to one Shivakumar as per Annexure-D, contended that a perusal of the contents of the charge-sheet would go to show that only six persons including Shivakumar mentioned in the charge-sheet were the persons who had raised slogans against the General Manager and it was these six persons who had also prevented the other candidates from entering the examination room and, as such, if the written test was cancelled, it was not on account of any fault on the part of the petitioners but rather it was on account of the act of the persons whose names are mentioned in the charge- sheet. It is, therefore, contended that, by denying the petitioners opportunity of taking the written test for the post of Officer Scale-I, the petitioners have lost their right to be considered along with the candidates who have been already selected pursuant to the examination held at two other centres viz., centre at Bellary and the centre at Kolar. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioners, relying on the contents of the charge-sheet, argued that the petitioners cannot be deprived of their right to take part in the written test and although the written test could not be conducted because of certain unpleasant events that took place on account of the acts of six persons, the petitioners, therefore, be permitted to write the written test once again and they also be considered for promotion if found eligible after the test, along with the candidates who have already been successful in the written test conducted at the other centres.