Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 298 (PAT)

Mithilesh Kumar v. Union of India

2014-02-28

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

body2014
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-Bank as well as learned Assistant counsel for Union of India. 2. The petitioner seeks a direction commanding the Respondents to appoint him on the post of Fulltime Sweeper in the Bank of Baroda. It is the petitioner’s case that pursuant to a communication dated 30.10.2013, the petitioner had participated in the interview on 16.11.2013. Thereafter, another interview letter dated 16.11.2013 was issued asking the petitioner to appear again for interview on 02.12.2013. 3. The petitioner’s grievance is that the petitioner received the said letter dated 16.11.2013 on 06.12.2013 and, therefore, he could not participate in the interview conducted on 02.12.2013. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent-Bank stating therein that the interview conducted on 16.11.2013, was found to be irregular inasmuch as the Interview Board was not found to have been duly constituted and accordingly fresh interview was conducted. Intimation as regards cancellation of the earlier interview was made to the concerned candidates and all candidates except this petitioner participated in the interview conducted on 02.12.2013. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondents has also submitted that nothing has been brought on record by the petitioner to substantiate that the petitioner received the said communication after 02.12.2013. It has further been submitted that in any event, for the postal delay the bank cannot be held responsible. 5. The present case was adjourned repeatedly to enable learned counsel for the petitioner, on his request to bring on record the documents to satisfy this Court that the petitioner in fact received the said communication on 06.12.2013. 6. In any view of the matter, I find substance in the submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-Bank that postal delay cannot be a ground for cancellation of process of selection. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the following judgments of this Court as well as of the Apex Court, reported in 2010(2) P.L.J.R. 1008 (Manas Kumar Sinha Vs. Bihar Public Service Commission), 2012(4) P.L.J.R. 995 (Mohan Jee Yadav Vs. State of Bihar), 2012(3) P.L.J.R. 173 (Krishna Nandan Sah Vs. Union of India) and (2006) 12 SCC 561 (State of Bihar and Others Vs. Amrendra Kumar Mishra). 7. This application does not have any merit and is accordingly dismissed. ?