IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Chapter VIII, Rule 32(2) (b) Description of the case Writ Petition No. 282 of 2004 (S/B) Date of decision: 16 th August, 2004. For the approval of: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar Hon’ble Mr. Justice Irshad Hussain - Whether the order/judgment should be sent to the - reporters for reporting? () - Whether the reporters be allowed to see the Judgment? ( Yes) A IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL. Writ Petition No. 282 (S/B) of 2004 Neeraj Kumar Garg. ……….. Petitioners. Versus The Chairman/M.D. Bank of India, Star House, C-5, ‘G’ Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai- 400051 and others …….. Respondents. ………….. Sri B.S. Khanka, learned counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondents. Coram: Hon. V.S. Sirpurkar, C.J. Hon. Irshad Hussain, J. Dated: September 16, 2004 P.C. The petitioner, who is an employee of the Union Bank of India as a Law Officer, finds fault with the advertisement published in the ‘Employment News’ dated 28.08.2004 – 3.9.2004, which was flouted by the Bank of India, an entirely different bank, where the Bank of India wants the Law Officers, who have five years of practice. Petitioner has put in three years of practice and three years of service in the Union Bank of India. Therefore, petitioner says that the advertisement itself is bad as he will not be able to complete since his service will not be taken to be active legal practice. We do not think that the petitioner has any right. The petition is dismissed accordingly. (Irshad Hussain, J.) (V.S. Sirpurkar, C.J.) 16.9.2004 16.09.2004 A