IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.57 of 1998 KUMAR AMITABH, son of Dr. A K Bhagat resident of Mohalla Purani Bazar, At + PO +PS District Jamui …(Petitioner)-Appellant Versus 1. UNION OF INDIA through Finance Secretary, Govt. of India, New Delhi 2. Central Recruitment Board (State Bank Group) through its Chairman, Recruitment Cell, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, State Bank Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Madam Cama Road, PB No. 10003, Bombay – 400021 3. Recruitment Cell, through its Manager, State Bank of India, Chamber Bhawan 5th Floor, Judge Court Road, Patna – 800001 (Respondents)- Respondents ----------- 10- 20.7.2009 Heard Mr. Anshuman for the appellant, and Mr. Kaushalendra Kumar Singh for respondent nos. 2 and 3. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature of Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of CWJC No.6076 of 1996 (Kumar Amitabh vs.Union of India and Ors.), being aggrieved by the order dated 18.12.1997 (Annexure-1), passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition was dismissed. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the Central Recruitment Board (State Bank Group) published an advertisement in 1994, inviting applications for appointment to the posts of Probationary Officers. The vacancies were for the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, State Bank of Indore, State Bank of Mysore, and other banks. The advertisement stated that appointments were to be made for 178 posts, out of which 21 were reserved for Scheduled Caste, 16 posts were reserved for Scheduled Tribe, 43 for OBC and 90 for General category. The petitioner claims to be belonging to OBC - 2 - category. After completion of the selection process, the petitioner was not selected leading to the writ petition. The learned single Judge has found that the selection board had fixed a minimum cut-off marks and the candidate would be within the zone of consideration after he has crossed the same. The petitioner did not cross the same and, therefore, there was no question of his being considered for appointment. It is not a case where the appointments were not made to the OBC category. Secondly, the petitioner has not laid any factual foundation before the learned single Judge nor before us as to what were the marks obtained by the last person in the merit list of the General category, as well as the OBC category, and the marks obtained by the petitioner. In other words, the petitioner has not set up any case that a person inferior to him in the merit list – either in the General category or OBC category – was selected. Identical issues were upheld by the Allahabad High Court, and has been dealt with in detail by the learned single Judge. We entirely agree with the findings of the learned single Judge. It is a frivolous appeal. 3. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) ( Jyoti Saran ) mrl - 3 -