1 wp2463.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2463 OF 2010 KJ Ms.Chaitralee P. Deshmukh )..Petitioner Vs. The State Bank of India & Ors. )..Respondents ---- Mr.Uday Bobde i/by I. S. Mecwan for the petitioner. Kusumakar Kaushik @ Vivek Sawant for the respondents. ---- CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ DATE : 11/4/2011. PC 1 Heard Counsel for the parties. 2 The petitioner has approached this Court on the assertion that the petitioner has secured 110 marks in the examination conducted by respondent no.1-bank. Whereas the candidate who has been selected, has obtained only 109 marks. In spite of this, the petitioner’s claim has been overlooked by the respondent no.1- 2 wp2463.10.sxw bank for being considered for appointment to the post of clerk. In the context of grievance made, this Court had asked the respondent no.1-bank to produce answer-sheet of the petitioner regarding general awareness subject in which the petitioner claims to have secured 17 marks. In response to the said direction, the respondent no.1-bank on affidavit of General Manager Shri Shriram Prabhakar Lele, has stated that as per the policy of the IBPS, the service providers, the answer sheets in respect of the written examination conducted in July 2008 has been destroyed on the expiry of 6 months from the date of the sending/finalization of written examination result by them. It is however, stated that the respondent no.1-bank has on its records the computer record in respect of optical marking recorder (OMR) answer sheet, which contains the records as respects to (i) Question No. (ii) the candidate’s response thereto and (iii) the score of the candidate in each of the respective papers. That record was produced in sealed cover for the perusal of the Court. We have perused the same and have noticed that the claim of the petitioner that she had scored 17 marks in general awareness subject, is incorrect. Whereas, we find 3 wp2463.10.sxw that she has secured only 7 marks in the said subject. In other words, petitioner has secured only 100 marks and not 110 marks as claimed by her. 3 In this view of the matter, the petition is devoid of merits. 4 In addition, we find that the petitioner was informed about the factual position in the first place on 22.1.2009 by the respondent no.1-bank. The petitioner thereafter kept on making representations to one or the other authority. In the context of the said representations, the petitioner was informed that her case cannot be considered. Such intimation was sent successively by the respondent no.1-bank to the petitioner in April-2009, June-2009, January-2010 and February-2010. However, the present petition has been filed only in November-2010. In other words, we are also of the opinion that the petition suffers from laches. Moreover, the select list has already been exhausted. We are informed that last person in respect of whom the grievance has been made in the petition is already appointed in the post of clerk 4 wp2463.10.sxw and has started working with the respondent no.1-bank. However, the said person has not been named as respondent, even though he is likely to be affected, if the petitioner were to succeed in this petition. 5 Taking overall view of the matter, petition is therefore, dismissed. The copy of the record produced before us in sealed cover is returned to the Counsel of the respondent no.1-bank. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)