Akash Singh vs Managing Director
2023 Latest Caselaw 17394 HP

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
                          SHIMLA

                                                     CWP No.8346 of 2023
                                                     Decided on: 02.11.2023




                                                                       .

    Akash Singh                                                         ...Petitioner

                                          Versus





    Managing Director, Himachal Pradesh
    State Co-operative Bank &
    another                                                           ...Respondents





    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
    1
     Whether approved for reporting? No

    For the petitioner:   M/s Ishan Kashyap, Prashant
                          Chauhan and Sative Chauhan,

                          Advocates.

    For the respondents: Mr. Parmod Singh Thakur, Advocate,
                        for respondent No.1.



                         Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor
                        General of India, for respondent No.2.




    Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

Notice. Mr. Parmod Singh Thakur, learned counsel

accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1. Mr. Balram

Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India accepts notice on

behalf of respondent No.2.

2. Taking into consideration the prayer made by the

petitioner in the present case, with the consent of the parties

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

the petition is being disposed of at this stage itself.

3. The petitioner pleads that he is to appear in the

main written examination for the post of Officer (Scale-I) on

.

03.11.2023 at 8 O'Clock at Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in

person, which post has been advertised for various Regional

Rural Banks. Simultaneously, he has also received an

intimation to appear in the Online examination for the post of

Assistant Manager in the respondent Corporation-Bank on the

same day, i.e. 03.11.2023 at 8:30 a.m.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

that the Online examination is being conducted by the

respondent No.1-Bank through respondent No.2 and incidently

for the post in issue, two dates have been fixed for the conduct

of the said Online examination, i.e. 03.11.2023 and 07.11.2023.

His prayer is that taking into consideration this peculiar

circumstance, it would be in the interest of justice in case the

respondents are directed to reschedule the Online examination

of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Manager from

03.11.2023 to 07.11.2023.

5. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India has

submitted that in case appropriate intimation to this effect is

received by respondent No.2 from the respondent-Bank, then

needful will be done.

.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits

that apart from filing this Writ Petition, no request to this effect

has been received by the petitioner till date.

7. Be that as it may, taking into consideration the

contention of the petitioner and the stand taken by the

respondents, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction

that forthwith the petitioner/counsel of the petitioner shall make

a request for re-scheduling his Online examination for the post

of Assistant Manager in the respondent No.1-Bank from

03.11.2023 to 07.11.2023. This request of his will be forwarded

by the Bank to respondent No.2 forthwith. The representation

be made to the Bank by the petitioner or his counsel on behalf

of the petitioner by 2:00 p.m. and the same shall be thereafter

immediately forwarded by the Bank concerned to respondent

No.2. Thereafter, respondent No.2 shall reschedule the holding

of the Online examination of the petitioner against the post of

Assistant Manager, HPSCB Ltd. from 03.11.2023 to

07.11.2023.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents have taken

note of the gist of this order and respondents shall not insist for

.

production of the order passed by this Court for its forthwith

compliance.

9. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents

submits that it may be observed that as this order has been

passed by the Court in the peculiar facts of the case, it may not

be treated as precedent. Ordered accordingly.

10. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also

stand disposed of.

Authenticated copy of this order be provided to the

parties, as prayed for.

(Ajay Mohan Goel)

Judge

November 02, 2023

(Rishi)