IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15261 of 2004 BINAYENDU BIBHUSHAN OJHA & ORS Versus BHOJPUR ROHTAS GRAMIN BANK &OR ----------- 5 27-8-2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 i.e. Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank and its officials. In spite of notice respondent no. 4, Baban Pandey, has chosen not to appear. Although it was indicated in the order dated 18-12- 2004 that notice was being issued for possible disposal of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. The facts are not in controversy. The seniority list of Scale I officers of the Bank came to be challenged by respondent no.4 through a representation before the concerned authority of the Bank in the year 2001. By annexure-D to the counter affidavit of the Bank the said representation of respondent no.4 was rejected by the Board of Directors in their order dated 28-4-2001. The decision was communicated to respondent no.4 by letter dated 18-7-2001 ( Annexure-E) . That letter shows that appeal of respondent no.4 had been rejected on account of long delay and also on the ground that earlier he had not raised any objection to the seniority list already circulated. Another appeal of respondent no.4 dated 25-8-2001 in the same matter was allowed with a direction that the seniority of respondent no.,4 and other similarly situated officers shall be revised accordingly. Such decision since it affected large number of officers of the Bank was issued by the Personnel Department of the Bank through - 2 - annexure-1 dated 3-11-2004. That has been challenged by the petitioners who are officers of the Bank. It has been submitted that after the seniority was finalized in the year 1982 the petitioners and other officers have received two promotions and it was wholly irrational and arbitrary on the part of the concerned authority of the Bank to order for revision of the gradation list after 22 years and that too when the earlier appeal of respondent no.4 had already been rejected. After hearing Mr. Naresh Dixit learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh learned counsel for the respondent Bank and its officials, this court finds that the respondent bank has no acceptable defence against the aforesaid submissions. Respondent no 4 has chosen not to appear and contest. In the facts of the case the submission on behalf of petitioners is found to be acceptable and the impugned decision of the respondent bank contained in annexure-1 is, therefore, quashed. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There will be no order as to costs. Naresh (Shiva Kirti Singh,J)