IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10572 of 2011 1. Manish Kumar Mishra @ Manisha Kr. Mishra Late Kamal Nath Mishra Resident Of Mishra Tola, P.S- Darbhanga, District-Darbhanga, Bihar, Presently Residing At C/O Bk Patel, Snehal, Plot No.16, Patel Colony, Sardear, Nagak, Gujrat. Versus 1. The State Bank Of India Through Its Chairman, Mumbai 2. Chairman State Bank Of India, Mumbai 3. General Manager H.R.Department, Local Head Office Bhadro, Ahmedabad, Gujrat 4. Assistant General Manager H.R.Department, Local Head Office Bhadro, Ahmedabad, Gujrat 5. Regional Manager State Bank Of India, Patna. ---------------------------------- with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11052 of 2011 1. Gaurav Kumar Late Kaushal Kishore Gupta Mohalla Mahavir Asthan, Main Road, Danapur Cant, P.S. Danapur, Dist. Patna. Versus 1. The State Bank Of India Through Its Chairman Mumbai. 2. Chairman, State Bank Of India, Mumbai 3. General Manager (Network-1) H.R. Department Local Head Office Brndra, Ahmedabad, Gujrat. 4. Assistant General Manager, (H.R.) Department Locak Head Offices, Bhadra, Ahmendrabad, Gujrat. 5. Assistant General Manager (H.R.) Patna. ---------------------------------- with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13076 of 2011 1. Aditya Kumar S/O Shri Ramjee Prasad Gupta R/O Lakshmi Yamuna Niwas, Jaiswal Compound, Mithanpura, P.S.- Mithanpura, Distt.- Muzaffarpur - 2 - Versus 1. The State Bank Of India Through The Chairman State Bank Of India, State Bank Bhawan, Central Office, Madame Cama Marg, Mumbai-400021 2. The Chief General Manager (C.G.M.) State Bank Of India, Local Head Office (Lho), Bhadra, Ahmedabad- 380001 3. The General Manager (G.M.) State Bank Of India, Local Head Office (Lho), Bhadra, Ahmedabad-380001 ---------------------------------- For the Petitioners :- Mr. G. P. Roy. For the Bank :- Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh. ------ 4 21/12/2011 In all the three writ applications a preliminary objection raised on behalf of the State Bank of India seems to be correct. All the three petitioners were Probationary Officers serving within the jurisdiction of Ahmedabad. They were not found fit for confirmation in the service of the Bank and, therefore, invoking the provisions of Rule 16(3) of S.B.I. OSR-1992, orders impugned have come to be passed. It is evident from perusal of the impugned orders that the cause of action had arisen at Ahmedabad and not at Patna. Merely because the petitioners are resident of Patna, it does not give cause of action at Patna. These three writ applications are dismissed on this ground alone. Petitioners may approach the High - 3 - Court of competent jurisdiction because this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioners. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)