BAHARUZZAMAN Vs. NADIA GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the writ petition the petitioner prayed for issuance of a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to cancel the panel being Annexure 'D' to the petition and not to give effect or further effect to the panel of candidates prepared by the respondent Gramin Bank or to recruit any Officer from the panel.

(2.) Before. however, proceeding in the matter any further, it is to be noted that the petitioner moved this Court earlier against the preparation of panel on the ground of bias of the Selection Committee. The petitioner's definite case before this Court was that by reason of the petitioner's active association with the employees, the Chairman of the Gramin Bank became very inimical towards the petitioner. This Court by reason of certain averments in the counter-affidavit allowed the writ petition and set aside the panel prepared by Nadia Gramin Bank. Subsequent to the decision of this Court, the matter went up in appeal being F.M.A.T. No. 1163 of 1985. The appeal was admitted and the application for stay of operation was refused. Subsequently, however, an application for addition of party was moved before the Appellate Court on behalf of some of the empanelled candidates and the Appellate Court placed on behalf of some of the empanelled candidates and the Appellate Court placed the appeal and the application in the list for hearing and upon hearing the matter, the Court was pleased to dismiss the application, inter alia holding that the persons so empanelled were necessary parties and in their absence the Writ petition was not maintainable. The matter, however, eventually taken to the Supreme Court against the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court. But the Supreme Court, however, was pleased to pass an order on the above noted Special Leave Petition giving the petitioner herein liberty to move a fresh writ petition under Article 226 for similar relief before this Court. In pursuance of the leave granted by the Supreme Court, this writ petition has been moved on identical set of facts. But it is significant that the counter-affidavit has been more detailed and elaborate.

(3.) The petitioner's case in this writ petition is that by reason of an advertisement issued in Ananda Bazar Patrika on 16th of July, 1984 inviting applications for the post of Officers (Branch Manager) in various ti Branches of Gramin Bank, the petitioner, having the requisite qualification, applied for the said post and was successful in the written test conducted by the Institute of Bank Selection Committee, Bombay. As a matter of fact, the petitioner obtained 76 marks out of 150 and secured 6th position in the written test and was called to appear at the oral test along with the other candidates. The petitioner was, however, not finally selected for impanelment on the basis that the total marks secured by him in the written test as well as in the oral interview does not justify his impanelment. The petitioner's definite case is that the Chairman of the Gramin Bank who was a member of the Interview Board was biased and was bent upon deleting the petitioner's name illegally and arbitrarily out of grudge. Certain instances were cited by the petitioner as regards the bias of the Chairman of the Gramin Bank and it is this non-inclusion in the panel which is under challenge on the ground that the panel itself has been prepared in a manner contrary to law and in a totally arbitrary fashion.