Bombay High Court
Sunil S/O Laxmanrao Deshmukh vs Central Bank Of India Thr. Its ... on 1 April, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2568 OF 2013.
PETITIONER : Sunil s/o Laxmanrao Deshmukh,
aged about 44 years, Occu: Unemployed,
R/o Wadner, Bholji, Tq.Nandura, Distt.
Buldhana.
: VERSUS :
RESPONDENT : Central Bank of India,
Divisional Office, Near Mangesh Mandal
Karyalaya, Adarsh Colony, Gorakshan
Road, Akola - 444001, through its
Divisional Manager.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr.A.S.Dhore, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.N.W.Almelkar, Advocate for the respondent.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI
AND P.N.DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATED: 1st APRIL, 2016.
JUDGMENT (Per B.P.Dharmadhikari,J.)
1. Petitioner claims that he applied properly in response to
advertisement issued by respondent - Bank for recruitment pointing out
that he had put in earlier service with it as a casual labour or on daily
wage basis. However, he was not called for interview and hence when
he made representation, on 4th of March, 2013 impugned
communication came to be issued. As per that communication, reason
assigned for not considering his application is, when petitioner was
initially provided work, his age was not between 18 years and 26 years.
2. According to Advocate Dhore, this reason is incorrect
because in application submitted for employment, in response to
advertisement, date of birth was mentioned as 17 th of December, 1969
and the date of joining bank for the first time was disclosed as 9 th of
March, 1990. After 9th of March, 1990 petitioner worked up to 1995
and hence date of entry as also date of last working is covered between
18 years and 26 years. He, therefore, submits that reason for not
calling the petitioner for interview is incorrect.
3. Advocate Almelkar relies upon reply-affidavit. He submits
that along with application petitioner did not submit any documents to
show the exact duration of service. No document as expected in
advertisement was filed and hence petitioner was not called for
interview. He submits that petitioner has attempted to submit
documents thereafter but as the documents were not accompanying the
application the same could not have been looked into. He relies upon
stand taken in specific plea in reply-affidavit.
4. Advocate Shri Dhore, in reply, points out certificate issued
by Regional Office at Akola where the length of service of petitioner has
been mentioned. He submits that said certificate is dated 7 th of
December, 2000. He further points out that an inconsistent stand has
now been taken before this Court for the first time. He further adds
that in this situation when the petitioner had worked, respondent -
bank could have called him for interview and verified the documents.
5. Advocate Almelkar had pointed out that present petitioner
was one of the parties in Industrial Dispute before CGIT, Nagpur and
CGIT has recorded finding that the workers did not put in requisite
length of service. Present petitioner has avoided to enter witness box
at that juncture.
6. The advertisement has been produced before this Court and
it invited applications before 26th of October, 2012. The age limit of 18
to 26 years is mentioned therein and as per Clause 4 it is mentioned
that a Certificate showing service of at least 45 days in continuous
period of 12 months should be submitted from concerned branch. The
petitioner has applied in response to that advertisement on 19 th of
October, 2012. Though he has mentioned duration in days, he has not
submitted any certificate issued by the concerned branch. It needs to
be noted that he has only mentioned name of branch along with the
number of days.
7. The petitioner during arguments has invited our attention to
the communication issued by Assistant Regional Manager to Branch
Manager at Vadner Bholji. This communication is dated 7 th of
December, 2000 i.e. more than two months after the advertisement and
the application submitted by petitioner. The petitioner has not stated
that he has submitted any such documents along with his application.
This communication could not have been submitted along with the
application.
8. In this situation, when the application was not complete,
stand taken in specific pleadings by respondent - bank cannot be stated
to be unjust.
9. It is no doubt true that in communication sent to petitioner
attention has been invited to Condition No.2 in the advertisement while
petitioner appears to have failed to comply with Condition no.4 thereof.
10. We, therefore, find no case made out warranting
interference.
11. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule discharged. No
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE.
chute
