INDRAMANI SAROJ Vs. UNITED BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a candidate for the subordinate staff in the United Bank of India (for short, "the Bank"). He claims that he was selected for the said post. However, the Bank has illegally cancelled the entire selection. He preferred earlier a writ petition no. 38611 of 2008 with the same allegation. The said writ petition was disposed of on 4 August 2008 with a direction to the respondent Bank to consider his representation and pass a reasoned order. In compliance of the said order the Bank has passed the impugned order dated 2 January 2009, wherein it is stated that the entire selection has been cancelled in pursuance of the decision taken in the meeting dated 15 July 2005 held by the Finance Ministry.

(2.) THE essential facts are; the petitioner claims that for filling the post of subordinate staff in respondent Bank a requisition was sent to the Employment Office and the Bank asked the name of eligible candidates. In pursuance thereof the petitioner claims that his name was sent by the employment exchange and he was selected in the said selection. A copy of the selection order dated 3 August 2005 is on the record as annexure -2 to the writ petition. But no appointment letter was issued. In the meantime the Bank on the wrong grounds has cancelled the entire selection.

(3.) IT has also been averred in the writ petition that the sixth respondent Santosh Kumar, who was selected in the same selection, is working in the Bank thus the petitioner has been discriminated. The petitioner has also stated that the Bank has wrongly taken a plea in the impugned order that the selection was made against a backlog vacancy. According to the petitioner the requisition, which was sent to the employment exchange, was for the general selection and was not confined to the backlog vacancy in SC and ST category.