Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/6 vs Hem Chandra Bharali And 4 Ors B on 25 November, 2024
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010016712024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/303/2024
INDIAN BANK AND 2 ORS
REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, 2
NETAJI SUBHASH ROAD, KOLKATA- 700001, WEST BENGAL
2: THE GENERAL MANAGER(HR)
INDIAN BANK
HEAD OFFICE 2 NETAJI SUBHASH ROAD
KOLKATA- 700001
WEST BENGAL
3: THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
INDIAN BANK
ZONAL OFFICE
G S ROAD
OPP BORA SERVICE STATION
GUWAHATI- 781007
ASSA
VERSUS
HEM CHANDRA BHARALI AND 4 ORS B
S/O SRI ASHOK KUMAR, R/O HOUSE NO. 04, BYE LANE-07, SUB BYE
LANE-1, P.O.-ULUBARI, P.S.-PALTAN BAZAR, DIST-KAMRUP(M), ASSAM,
GUWAHATI-781007
2:GANESH RAJBONGSHI
SON OF LATE GAJEN RAJBONGSHI
R/O VILLAGE KACHIMPUR
P.O- KENDUKUCHI
DISTRICT- NALBARI- 781341
ASSAM.
3:BIKASH BHARALI
SON OF SRI RATNA BHARALI
Page No.# 2/6
C/O SRI UTPAL KAKATI
HOUSE NO 7
LACHIT NAGAR
BYE LANE-04
ULUBARI
P.S- PALTANBAZAR
GUWAHATI-781007
ASSAM.
4:BIPIN GOGOI
SON OF LATE JOGESWAR GOGOI
R/O VILLAGE DUBIA PATHAR
P.O- DUBIA
DISTRICT- SONITPUR
784178
ASSAM.
5:KAMAL HANDIQUE
SON OF LATE GANIRAM HANDIQUE
RESIDENT OF GOROIMARI
P.O- TETONBARI
DISTRICT- SONITPUR-784171
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D DAS SR. ADV, MS S SHARMA,MR K TALUKDAR,MR. I
DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : , FOR CAVEATOR,MR S CHAKRABORTY
Linked Case : WA/305/2024
INDIAN BANK AND 2 ORS.
REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
HEAD OFFICE
2 NETAJI SUBHASH ROAD
KOLKATA- 700001
WEST BENGAL
2: THE GENERAL MANAGER(HR)
INDIAN BANK
HEAD OFFICE 2 NETAJI SUBHASH ROAD
KOLKATA- 700001
WEST BENGAL
Page No.# 3/6
3: THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
INDIAN BANK
ZONAL OFFICE
G S ROAD
OPP BORA SERVICE STATION
GUWAHATI- 781007
ASSAM
VERSUS
AMARJIT KAPUR AND ANR.
S/O SRI ASHOK KUMAR
R/O HOUSE NO. 04
BYE LANE-07
SUB BYE LANE-1
P.O.-ULUBARI
P.S.-PALTAN BAZAR
DIST-KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
GUWAHATI-781007
2:BIREN DAS
S/O LATE MANIK DAS
R/O C/O BARMAN STORES
SANKARDEV NAGAR PATH
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI-781006
------------
Advocate for : MR. D DAS SR. ADV
Advocate for : appearing for AMARJIT KAPUR AND ANR.
Linked Case : WA/60/2024
INDIAN BANK AND 2 ORS.
REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
HEAD OFFICE
2 NETAJI SUBHASH ROAD
KOLKATA- 700001
WEST BENGAL
2: THE GENERAL MANAGER(HR)
INDIAN BANK
HEAD OFFICE 2 NETAJI SUBHASH ROAD
KOLKATA- 700001
WEST BENGAL
Page No.# 4/6
3: THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
INDIAN BANK
ZONAL OFFICE
G S ROAD
OPP BORA SERVICE STATION
GUWAHATI- 781007 ASSAM
VERSUS
GAJEN DAS AND 6 ORS B
S/O- KESHAB DAS
R/O- NORTH GUWAHATI
RAJADUWAR
DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM
2:AKHIL BORO
S/O- SRI GANGADHAR BORO
R/O- H NO. 16 ODALBAKRA
LALGANESH GHY- 34
DIST- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM
3:UTPAL BAISHYA
S/O- KAMESHWER BAISHYA
R/O- SAUKUCHI
DIST- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM
4:MANJIIT RABHA
S/O- PARESH RABHA
R/O- JARAPARA
P.O- BOKO
DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM
5:BRINDABAN DAS
S/O- SRI CHAN DAS
R/O- HAJO PANIPARA
DIST- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM
6:ATIKUR RAHAMAN
S/O- SRI JIYAUR RAHAMAN
R/O- DIMAPUR
HAJO KAMRUP ASSAM
7:KAMAL SHILL
S/O- KANU SHILL
R/O- DWARKUCHI
TAMULPUR
DIST- BAKSHA ASSAM
------------
Page No.# 5/6
For the appellants : Mr. D. Das, Sr. Advocate
Assisted by Mr. I. Das, Advocate
For the respondents : Mr. S. Chakraborty, Advocate
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
25-11-2024
(Vijay Bishnoi, C.J.)
These writ appeals are preferred by the appellant bank being aggrieved
with the common judgment and order dated 16.11.2023 passed by the learned
Single Judge in WP(C) Nos.3394/2018, 1735/2020 and 5479/2021.
The respondents herein have preferred the writ petitions raising a
grievance that the bank initiated process for selection of sweepers. However,
later on, they have kept in abeyance the said selection process on the pretext
that the central government has issued an advisory to discontinue the selection
process on the basis of interview. The learned Single Judge has ordered that the
appellant bank is required to complete the process of selection once it is
started. It is also observed by the learned Single Judge that whatever advisory
was issued by the Central Government, was only after the selection process had
almost been over.
Learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that simply because the
respondents have participated in the selection process, they do not have any
indefeasible right to claim appointment once the Board of Directors of the
appellant bank has decided to keep the selection process for appointment of
sweepers in abeyance. It is contended that the learned Single Judge has erred
Page No.# 6/6
in issuing directions to the appellants to provide appointment to the
respondents.
Per contra, learned counsel for the private respondents has vehemently
opposed the writ appeals and has argued that the learned Single Judge rightly
directed the appellants to conclude the selection process and grant appointment
to the respondents on the basis of the said selection process. It is contended
that the appellants cannot take recourse of the circular or the advisory issued by
the central government which is prospective in nature. It is contended that prior
to the issuance of the said advisory, the selection process was already over. It is
further argued that the respondents have indefeasible right for consideration for
appointment on the posts advertised as per the rules and regulations which
were in vogue at the time of issuance of the advertisement and initiation of the
selection process.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the
view that the matters require consideration. Hence, admit.
No need to issue notice as the parties are already represented.
In the meantime, effect and operation of the impugned judgment and
order dated 16.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge shall remain stayed.
List these appeals for hearing in the month of February, 2025.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
