IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14822 of 2001 RAJIV RANJAN Son of Madaneshwar Pd.Sinha aged about 31 years resident of mohalla- Income Tax Colony, Bhutnath Road,P.O. Lohiya Nagar, P.S. Agamkuan, District Patna,...... Petitioner Versus 1. THE SECRETARY,C.R.B.(STATE BANK GROUP) madhuli, Ist. Floor H/2 Shiv Sagar Estate, Dr. Annie Besant Road,Worli, Mumbai 2. The Managing Director & Group Executive S.B.I., Corporate Centre Madame Cama Road, Mumbai 3. The Assistant General Manager ( P.& HRD ) recruitment cell S.B.I. Local Head Office “Samridhi Bhawan” ground floor Standard Road, Calcutta-7 4.. Assistant General Manager (P & HRD ) Recruitment Cell State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Chamber Bhawan VIth Floor Judges Court, Road No.1 For the petitioner:- Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh,Advocate For the S.B.I. :- Mr. Arbind Kumar Jha,Advocat 12 12-1-2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State Bank of India. On behalf of petitioner two grievances have been raised. First is that there was a re-examination for the candidates of Gujrat State on account of an earth quake and the comparative results of all different years show that this year more candidates from Gujrat have competed and have been selected for appointment to the post of Probationary Officer in the State Bank of India.The second contention is that while making selection and appointment to various categories of reserve posts and to the general categories - 2 - there are some variations in the number of posts shown to have been reserved and posts shown to have been available for general category. So far as issue of better results by the candidates of Gujrat State is concerned it may be possible on account of several reasons and on the basis of facts and materials available before this court it is not possible to presume that there was any wrong committed by the respondents which has resulted in better result by the candidates of Gujrat State. Hence, the first submission does not warrant any interference in favour of the petitioner. So far as the second contention is concerned, through the statement made in the supplementary counter- affidavit particularly, in paragraphs -9 to 12 the respondent bank has explained the relevant facts and figures to show that there has been no reduction in the number of seats available for general category in which candidates from reserved category have been shifted because they were above the cut off marks fixed for the general category candidates. In the same supplementary counter-affidavit - 3 - paragraph-15 discloses that in the merit list of general category prepared after applying the cut off marks, petitioner is at serial no. 612 whereas the last candidate from that category selected and appointed was at serial no. 271. From the aforesaid facts it is clear that petitioner cannot be included in the list of selected candidate in general category even if few more vacancies, as per grievances of the petitioners are added to that category. Hence, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case there is no material to grant any relief to the petitioner. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. (Shiva Kirti Singh,J)