IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13057 of 2009 Ashwini Sagar, son of Shri Jai Prakash Yadav, resident at Gandhipur, P.O. Bariarpur, District Munger (Bihar) Versus 1. The Union Of India through its cabinet Secretary, New Delhi 2. The Finance Secretary, Union of India, New Delhi 3. The Chairman, State Bank of India, Mumbai 4. The General Manager, Central Recruitment and Promotion Department, State Bank of India, Mumbai- 400 021 5. The Asstt. General Manager, Central Recruitment and Promotion Department, Corporate Centre, Tulsiani Chambers, 1st Floor (West Wing)-212 Free Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 6. The Asstt. General Manager (HR), Recruitment Cell, State Bank of India, Judges Court Road, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna- 800 001 7. The Asstt. General Manager (HR), Recruitment Cell, State Bank of India, Samriddhi Bhawan, 1, Strand Road, Kolkata- 700 001 8. The Asstt. General Manager (HR), Recruitment Cell, State Bank of India, New Administrative Bidg. Moti Mahal Marg, Hazratganj, Lucknow- 226001 9. The Asstt. General Manager (HR) Recruitment Cell, State Bank of India, Plot no. C-6, Synergy, G-Block, Bandra- Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai- 400 051 10. The Central Public Information Officer and General Manager (OL & CS), Right to Information Department, Corporate Centre, 4th Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Mumbai- 400 021 11. The Central Public Information Officer and General Manager, Right to Information Department Corporate Centre, 9th Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Mumbai- 400 021 ----------- For the Petitioner :Mr. Rana Ishwar Chandra, Advocate For the Union of India :Mr. Kalika Nand Jha, CGC For the Bank :M/s K.K. Sinha & Sunil Kr. Singh, Advocates 04/ 23.07.2010 From paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 of the counter affidavit, it appears that the petitioner could not be considered for appointment against a post available at Kolkata, Lucknow and Mumbai Centres, as there were surplus candidates in those centres, as such, marks obtained by the petitioner will have no relevance at the other centres where qualified candidates are in surplus and in view of such statement, relief prayed for in the writ petition cannot 2 be granted and the writ petition is, accordingly dismissed. Arjun/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)