.<^5--:' .^-[••"^y- ^^..',^!^-:;:;.. ...•-•;:^rt^i''/l O \'°-" /z.° yt^y-'\-\\ A.A®e &'i>v-/ '-, 1 na>?5..?, 'wiUi'i IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 1CHHATTISGARH) W.A. No. f<^G /2010 (Arising out of order dated 29-03-2010 passed by the Single Bench of this High Court in W.P. (S) No. 1257/2010) APPELLANT PETITIONER Chandrakishor Dhanurved, S/o. Shri Bhuneshwar Prasad Dhanurved, aged about 26 years, R/o. Old Kashiram Nagar, Plot No. 18, Post Office - fc- Raljrigram, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ,/^^'s!ss. ''' ./'^ '^ " ^- .'st'. /^/ '\%\ l;|SA^Ai?S: V ''<na^~.—-^s,fSV''^ 1. Chairman and Managing Director Central Office, Central Bank of India, Chandramukhi Nariman Point, Mumbai (Maharastra) 2. Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, Central Bank of India, 1st Floor, Block-C, Bombay Market, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Swapna Biswas, Clerk Central Bank of India, Branch-Saraipali, Distt. Mahasa;mund (C.G.) 4. Renuka Korsewada, Clerk Central Bank of India, Branch & Baloda, Through - Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 (1) OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT JAPPEALTO THE DIVISION BENCH) ACT,2006 ) IH ^iilNiiljglfi HIG H COU RT OF CHHATTISeARHAT BILASPUK DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE SffRT i.M.QUDDUSI & HOJl' BLE SHRI PRASHANTKUhSAR MISHRA. JJ. WRIT APPEAL N0.140/2010 APPELLANT (Petitioner) RESPONDENTS Vs Chandrakishor Dhanurved Chairman and Managing Director, Central Office, Central Bank of India, Mumbai & others i Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate for the appeilant. . ORAL JUD6MENT (Passed on 7" May, 2010) i. J, ^:'^..^;..., ...- 1. Heard on admission. 2. This v/rit appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 29.3.2010 passed by t'ne learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No.1257/10 dismissing the writ petition. 3. The writ appeiiant appeared in the selection held for appointment in ciericai cadre of the Scheduied Castes candjdates conducted by the respondent Bank pursuant to the advertisement dated 20.2.2010. The ratio in caliing for interview was 1:3 and ihere '.vere four posts. Grievance of the writ appeitant is that only 12 candidates shouid have been called for interview, but the respondents have called 13 candidates for interview and his candidature was rejected and only four femaie candidates were deciared selected. 4. The iearned Single Judge giving reasons dismissed the writ petition. 5. Learned counsei for the writ appeilant has submitted that the writ appetlant has sought information under the Right to information Act, 2005 but the same has not been provided to him. 6. Learned Single Judge has held that there is a procedure prescribed under the Right to information Acf, 2005 and the writ appellant hereln may take recourse of the same. We have also been informed that the appeai for non-supply ofthe information has also been r'iled by the writ appellant. 7. in view of above, we see no good ground to interfere in the impugned order as vve have not found any illegaiity, impropriety or manifest error of iaw tnerein. 8. The writ appeal is misconceivea and tnerefore tne same is aismissecl in timine. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge