KHEM SINGH Vs. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.7.2010 which had endorsed the finding of the trial court dated 5.9.2006 whereby the suit of the plaintiff Khem Chand seeking an injunction against the defendant bank had been dismissed.

(2.) The present suit was a suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction. It was filed by six plaintiffs. Khem Chand plaintiff no.1 is the only aggrieved appellant in this second appeal. The plaintiff/appellant had been registered with the Employment Exchange for the purposes of getting employment. Defendant no.1 i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce had sent a requisition to defendant no.2 i.e. Employment Exchange for recruitment to the posts of Peon-cum-Waterman. This was vide Ex.DW1/1 dated 1.3.1995. Defendant no.1 had desired recruitment of 28 Peon-cum-Waterman for various branches/offices of their bank. The plaintiffs had been called for interview on 12.5.1995. The contention of defendant no.2 was that since the plaintiff had been registered with the employment exchange after 1.3.1995 his case could not be considered by defendant no.1. Plaintiff was accordingly not considered for employment. This had resulted in the filing of the present suit.

(3.) The trial judge had framed seven issues which were again reframed on 8.5.2002. One witness was examined on behalf of the plaintiff and one witness was examined on behalf of the defendant. The names of 154 candidates including those of the plaintiffs had been sent by defendant no.2 to defendant no.1. Appellant was interviewed on 12.5.1995. On the scrutiny of the papers it was noted that the appellant had been registered with defendant no.2 after 1.3.1995 i.e. after the period of time when the vacancies were notified. Further defendant no.2 had sent the list of candidates for the post of waterman alone whereas the contention of defendant no.1 was that he had sought recruitment for the posts of Peon-cum- Waterman. In these circumstances, defendant no.1 vide communication dated 17.5.1995 Ex.DW1/3 returned the list of candidates to defendant no.2 with a request to send a fresh list. Suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. He was held not entitled to any relief.