IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12141 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Urmila Devi W/O Late Baldeo Mandal R/O Vill.- Purani Taridih, Bodh Gaya, P.O. + P.S.- Bodh Gaya, Distt.- Gaya .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Bank Of India Through Its The Zonal Manager, Bihar Zone, Patna 2. The Zonal Manager, Bihar Zone, Patna, Bank Of India 3. The Regional Manager, Patna Region, Bank Of India, Patna 4. The Branch Manager, Bodh Gaya Branch, Bank Of India, Distt.- Gaya .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Deepak Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Braj Nandan Kumar Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL) 6 09-11-2011 Heard both sides. Petitioner approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents to appoint him on the post of Sweeper in the Bank of India (for short “the Bank”) primarily on the ground that earlier also a selection process was gone into in which the petitioner was selected. The respondent Bank has filed a counter affidavit to oppose the prayer made in the writ petition. Paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 thereof read as under: “8. That it is further relevant to mention here that a fresh guidelines was received from Head Office Vide IOM No. HO:HR:IRVGK:I-160 dated 08.05.2010. In terms of revised guidelines, Bank cancelled the earlier Patna High Court CWJC No.12141 of 2011 (6) dt.09-11-2011 2 recruitment process which was initiated vide advertisement dted 13.06.2009 and initiated a fresh recruitment process vide Advertisement dated 17.08.2010, wherein higher educational qualification ceiling was removed. The said advertisement was again sent to respective District Employment Exchange and to the branches where the vacancy existed so that eligible candidates can apply for the said post. In the said fresh recruitment process, Smt. Urmila Devi also applied vide her application dated 06.09.2010. In the light of the fresh recruitment process her application was considered and she was called for interview on 06.10.2010 along with other candidates vide letter dated 29.09.2010 of the Bank. 9. That the petitioner appeared for interview on 06.10.2010 as per fresh recruitment process but this time her name was not recommended by the Interview Committee and as such she was not selected for the said post of Safai Karamchari by the Respondent Bank. 10. Although the interview Board has earlier recommended her name for appointment but it was not to be construed to be a letter of appointment because Bank reserve the right to cancel the candidature of any applicant before giving final letter of appointment. Moreover, the aforesaid act of Bank was challenged by some other petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 12953 of 2010 before the Hon’ble High Court, Patna but the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the said petition vide its order dated 03.09.2010 concluding that they do not appear to be any illegality in the act of Bank in withdrawing the earlier advertisement and publishing fresh advertisement dated 17.08.2010 deleting the maximum qualification clause.” Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that by virtue of earlier selection process undergone by the respondent Bank, no vested legal right accrued to her. It has been contended that the petitioner has sought relevant information from the Bank Patna High Court CWJC No.12141 of 2011 (6) dt.09-11-2011 3 and awaiting for the same. Regard being had to the submission of the parties and the stand taken by the respondent Bank noted above, this Court is not inclined to accede to the request of the petitioner. The application is dismissed. It will, however, be open to the petitioner to seek relevant informations and thereafter pursue her remedy in accordance with law. PANKAJ KUMAR/- (Kishore K. Mandal, J)