IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14641 of 2010 ASHOK KUMAR GOSWAMI, SON OF RAGHUNATH GOSWAMI, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA GOLGHAR, PARK ROAD, PATNA-1, G.P.O., GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA-800001. . Versus 1. THE CHAIRMAN/MANAGING DIRECTOR, BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, LOK MANGAL, 1501 SHIVAJI NAGAR, PUNE- 411005. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER(PERSONNEL AND INDUSTRIAL RELATION), BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, ‘LOKMANGAL’ 1501 SHIVAJI NAGAR, PUNE-411005. 3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, REGIONAL OFFICE, 3, NETAJI SUBHAS ROAD, CALCUTTA- 700001. 4. THE CHIEF MANAGER, BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, PANDEY PLAZA, IST FLOOR, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA-800001. ----------- 02. 06.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K.Verma learned counsel for the Bank of Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as the Bank). 2. Petitioner had appeared for appointment as Class-IV employee in the Bank pursuant to advertisement published in Dainik Jagaran newspaper dated 15.9.2004, Anneuxre-1. Having become successful in the selection test, petitioner was served with letter dated 25.6.2005, Annexure-5 calling upon him to furnish his photograph and other documents by 18.7.2005. In compliance of the said instruction petitioner furnished his photograph and other documents as was required from him under letter dated 25.6.2005 on or before 18.7.2005. Even after passage of reasonable time of furnishing the photograph and the documents, petitioner did not receive the appointment letter he contacted the authorities of the Bank but the authorities of the Bank did not respond. Petitioner knocked the door of the authorities under the Right to Information Act and obtained - 2 - information dated 25.6.2010, Annexure-21, wherefrom it appears that selectees of the selection process undertaken by the Bank in the year 2004-05 were not given any appointment. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that from short recital of the case as appended with the information dated 25.6.2010, Annexure-21 it would appear that selection process pursuant to advertisement, Annexure-1 was dispensed with on account of pressure of the union representative, who submitted that all the five employees who have been serving the Bank for more than ten years as daily wagers their services be regularized as the daily wagers have continued for more than 240 days in a year. In appreciation of the stand of the union representative, Bank dispensed with the selection process pursuant to advertisement, Annexure-1 and regularized the services of five daily wagers against the posts advertised under Annexure-1. Counsel for the petitioner, however submitted that from advertisement, Annexure-1 it will appear that the posts advertised were nine, against which five daily wagers have been regularized, four posts for which selection process was conducted pursuant to Annexure-1 are still vacant and petitioner has been patiently waiting for his case to be considered against the remaining vacancies. 4. This court cannot issue direction to the Bank to consider the case of the petitioner for remaining vacancies. It is for the Bank to consider whether to appoint the petitioner and other similarly situate persons against the remaining vacancies as per their merit position in the select list. - 3 - 5. Let competent authority of the Bank consider the request of the petitioner for appointment against remaining four vacancies advertised under advertisement dated 15.9.2004, Annexure-1 as early as possible, in any case within two months from the date of receipt of the request of the petitioner along with a copy of this order before the competent authority. 6. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)