SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(All) 23844

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
RAVI KUMAR YADAV – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND 4 OTHERS – Respondent
WRIA 8534/2018



Advocates:
['SANTOSH KUMAR YADAV', '', 'SIDDHARTH KHARE', 'A S G I', '', 'RATAN AGARWAL', 'OM PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA', 'VIVEK RATAN AGRAWAL']

A.F.R.

Court No. - 32

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8534 of 2018

Petitioner :- Ravi Kumar Yadav

Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Yadav,Siddharth

Khare

Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Om Prakash

Srivastava,Ratan Agarwal,Vivek Ratan Agrawal

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

1.

Heard Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Shri Vivek Ratan Agarwal, learned counsel for

the respondents.

2.

The present writ petition is preferred challenging the

order dated 9.2.2018 passed by respondent no 4. Further prayer

has been made in the writ petition for directing the respondent

authorities to appoint the petitioner as the Single Window

Operator-A/Clerk in the respondent department and to pay his

regular monthly salary every month.

3.

The Institute of Banking Personnel Selection notified a

common recruitment process for recruitment in clerical grade

for the 19 Banks including the respondent-Union Bank of India.

The advertisement notified the time schedule under which

01.09.2014 was specified as the last date for online registration

and 17.11.2014 as the date for downloading call letters for

examination in December 2014. The result were to be declared

in February 2015.

(2)

4.

The petitioner in pursuance to the aforesaid

advertisement submitted his application for participating in the

above-mentioned recruitment process. Petitioner was issued

admit card for appearing in the written examination scheduled

to be held on 13.12.2014 in which petitioner was required to

appear in the said examination at the examination centre being

Dr. Rizvi College of Engineering, Kaushambi.

5.

The petitioner participated in the online examination held

on 13.12.2014. Result of aforesaid examination was declared by

examining body being Institute of Banking Personnel Selection

and petitioner was shown to have qualified written examination.

Petitioner was also shortlisted for interview by Examining

Body.

6.

The petitioner participated in the interview and thereafter

in final result, petitioner was shown to be selected under the

OBC category for appointment in Union Bank of India. The

copy of final result of the petitioner is annexed as annexure 5 to

writ petition.

7.

In pursuance to above-mentioned selection of petitioner,

Assistant General Manager, Union Bank of India issued an

offer of appointment to the petitioner on 25.04.2015. The

candidates recruited for the State of Uttar Pradesh were

required to report before the Field General Managers’ Office at

Lucknow on or before 30.05.2015. Petitioner reported at the

Lucknow Office and completed all formalities.

8.

On 28.12.2015 petitioner was issued a communication by

the Assistant General Manager of respondent Bank to the effect

that during the course of reporting of candidature of petitioner it

(3)

was found that there existed variance in the signature of

petitioner on different pages upon which specimen of

handwriting and thumb impression was obtained from

petitioner and same was forwarded to the handwriting expert

for enquiry. Subsequent to the receipt of the communication

dated 28.12.2015 by the petitioner there has been no

communication to the petitioner and as such, petitioner

preferred Writ Petition No.42948 of 2017.

9.

The above-mentioned writ petition was finally disposed

of by order dated 24.10.2017 while noticing the contention of

counsel for the respondent bank that a fact-finding enquiry is

being conducted by respondent bank in which opinion of

handwriting expert has been called and bank has yet to take a

final view in the matter. The aforesaid order dated 24.10.2017

further directed respondent bank to complete the enquiry within

a period of two months after affording the petitioner adequate

opportunity of hearing and after confronting the petitioner with

the material considered adverse to him.

10.

Respondents supplied the handwriting expe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top