1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 386/2005 Smt. Manju Vyas Vs. Punjab National Bank & Anr. Date of Order :: 16.4.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Rakesh Kalla, for the petitioner/s. Mr. Jagdish Vyas, for the respondent-Bank. ... Being widow of late Sh. Harigopal Vyas, a deceased employee of the respondent Bank the petitioner submitted an application for appointment in clerical cadre on compassionate grounds. The appointment aforesaid was required to be considered as per the Scheme for employment of Dependants/employees who died while in service of the Bank. As per the Scheme aforesaid appointment could have been granted only in the event the aspirants fulfil the criteria prescribed for appointment. As per the Scheme, the candidature of the petitioner was considered and under a communication dated 10.9.2002 she was directed to appear before the Senior Manager, Regional Office of the respondent-Bank. The petitioner was not found suitable to be appointed in clerical cadre, thus, an another opportunity was allowed to her under a communication dated 7.11.2002 to improve her suitability. The petitioner's candidature was re-adjudged on 3.3.2003 but on that day too she was not found suitable for appointment in clerical cadre, accordingly, appointment was denied to her. Being aggrieved by the same this petition for writ is preferred. 2 A reply to the writ petition is filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that a person appointed in clerical cadre of the bank is required to undertake responsible job, and therefore, only person possessing minimum suitability could have been employed. In the cadre aforesaid, as per the respondents, the candidature of the petitioner was considered but she was not found fit to be appointed on compassionate grounds, and therefore, her candidature was rejected. Heard and also perused the original selection proceedings, from perusal thereof it is apparent that the petitioner failed even to copy few sentences from the news-paper. On both the occasions the petitioner also failed to give correct answers of simple arithmetical queries. As such, I am satisfied that the respondent-Bank objectively considered candidature of the petitioner and adequate opportunity was also given to her to improve her performance, but she failed to do so. In totality of the facts of the case the respondents have not committed any wrong in denying appointment to the petitioner, thus, this petition for writ is having no merit, hence dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal