Laxmi Kant Das vs Vananchal Gramin Bank
2023 Latest Caselaw 2701 Jhar

                           -1-



   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    L.P.A. No.547 of 2019
                               ----
Laxmi Kant Das, aged about 39 years, son of Sri Tara Pada
Das, resident of village Rangaliya, P.O. Rangaliya, P.S.
shikaripara, Sub-Division & District Dumka, State
Jharkhand.                 ...     ...    Petitioner/Appellant
                             Versus
1. Vananchal Gramin Bank, Santhal Paraganas, through its
Chairman, Head Office at Dumka, Near Municipal Chowk,
P.O. & P.S. & District Dumka, State Jharkhand.
2.   The Chairman, Vananchal Gramin Bank, Santhal
Paraganas, Head Office at Dumka, Near Municipal Chowk,
P.O. & P.S. & District Dumka, State Jharkhand.
3.   The General Manager (Administration), Vananchal
Gramin Bank, Santhal Paraganas, Head Office at Dumka,
Near Municipal Chowk, P.O. & P.S. & District Dumka, State
Jharkhand.
4.   The Branch Manager, Vananchal Gramin Bank, Santhal
Paraganas (Then Santhal Paraganas Gramin Bank),
Ashanbani, P.O. Ashanbani, P.S. Shikaripara, District
Dumka, State Jharkhand.
5.   The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Labour
Employment and Training Department, State of Jharkhand at
Project Bhawan, HEC Compound, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.
Dhurwa, District Ranchi, State Jharkhand.
6.   The Assistant Director (Employment), Sub-regional
Employment, Dumka, near S.P. College, P.O. & P.S. &
District Dumka, State Jharkhand.
7.   The District Employment Officer, Employment Office at
Dumka, near S.P. College, P.O. & P.S. & District Dumka,
State Jharkhand.
                     ...     ... Respondents / Respondents
                             -------
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
                              ------
For the Appellant    : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate
For the State        : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, S.C.-IV
For the Bank         : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
                             --------

ORAL JUDGMENT
Order No.06 : Dated 8th August, 2023
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

I.A. No.7186 of 2021

This interlocutory application has been preferred under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 06

days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Heard the parties.

3. Having regard to the averments made in the application

and submissions made on behalf of the appellant, we are of

the view that the appellant was prevented from sufficient

cause in filing the appeal within the period of limitation. As

such, the delay of 06 days in preferring the appeal is hereby

condoned.

4. I.A. No. 7186 of 2021 stands allowed.

L.P.A. No.547 of 2019

5. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, has

submitted that the defect No.4 pointed out by the office may

be ignored since it relates to filing of typed copy of few pages.

6. This Court, considering the fact that since the pages are

legible, is of the view that the defect No.4 may be ignored.

7. Accordingly, defect No.4 is ignored.

8. The instant intra-court appeal, preferred under Clause

10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order dated

02.07.2019 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in

W.P.(S) No.3714 of 2010 by which the direction sought for

upon the respondent Bank for consideration of the case of the

writ petitioner on Class-IV post has been refused to be

granted by dismissing the writ petition.

9. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the

writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein,

read as under :-

10. It is the case of the appellant that Respondent No.3

(Vananchal Gramin Bank) has issued a requisition to the

Respondent no. 6 (Assistant Director Employment) dated

30.11.2009 for sending the names of the candidates

registered in the Employment Exchange. The Respondent

No.6 sent the names of all the eligible candidates with

address, Registration Number, date of birth, academic

qualification, work experience and remarks except the

petitioner by letter dated 14.12.2009.

11. The petitioner made an application under Right to

Information Act, 2005 before the Respondent no. 6 on

20.04.2010 and in pursuance to the said application, the

respondent no. 6 issued letter no. 252 dated 04.05.2010 to

the petitioner directing him to appear in his office with all

relevant documents like educational certificate, original

certificate of experience, registration card of employment

exchange and caste certificate of caste from and receipt of

this letter. The writ petitioner appeared before the concerned

authority and, thereafter, on 12.05.2010 his name was

forwarded to the Bank for considering his case for interview.

12. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that the

interview was conducted but he was not called for interview.

The final result was also published. The writ petitioner made

representations for consideration of his case but when his

case was not considered, he filed writ petition before this

Court being W.P.(S) No.3714 of 2010 which has been

dismissed against which the present appeal has been

preferred.

13. It appears from the factual aspect based upon the

pleading that the grievance of the petitioner that he was

having experience for consideration of his appointment on

Class-IV post under the respondent Bank. It further appears

that the respondent Bank has made requisition to the

concerned Employment Exchange for sending the names of

eligible candidates for consideration of their candidature by

virtue of letter issued in this regard on 30.11.2009 addressed

to the Employment Exchange, Dumka.

14. The grievance of the writ petitioner that the Employment

Exchange, Dumka has referred the details regarding the

claim of the writ petitioner to the concerned Bank after the

completion of the process, since the same was due to the

laches committed on the part of the concerned Employment

Exchange, as the details of the writ petitioner was received on

13.05.2010.

15. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved, has approached to

this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.3714 of

2010 by seeking a direction for consideration of his case for

his appointment on Class-IV post since no fault lies on his

part and his right to consideration has been snatched away

due to the laches on the part of the Employment Exchange,

Dumka and in that view of the matter, prayer was made for a

direction upon the respondent bank for consideration of his

case for appointment on Class-IV post.

16. The respondent State as also the concerned Bank had

put their appearance before the learned writ court and have

filed their respective counter affidavits by taking the ground

that no laches lie either on the part of the respondent Bank

or on the part of the respondent State since in pursuance to

the requisition made by the Bank on 30.11.2009, the

required details of the writ petitioner had been incorporated

in a concise list of 12 candidates and had been sent to the

concerned Bank, however, in the said list the name of the

writ petitioner was not referred. By way of abundant

precaution, list of the candidates was also notified in the

Notice Board of the office. The due correspondence was also

made to the writ petitioner but he did not turn up.

17. The learned writ court, while considering the matter,

has also called upon the original records and based upon its

perusal, the writ petition has been dismissed holding the case

of the writ petitioner devoid of merit against which the

present appeal.

18. Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant/writ petitioner, has submitted that the learned

Single Judge has not appreciated the fact in right perspective

regarding depriving the writ petitioner from the right of

consideration for his appointment on Class-IV in the

respondent Bank even though no laches lie on his part,

rather, laches lie on the part of the concerned Employment

Exchange for which the writ petitioner cannot be allowed to

suffer.

19. Learned counsel, on the aforesaid premise, has

submitted that it is a fit case where a direction ought to have

been given by the learned Single Judge for consideration of

the case of the writ petitioner for appointment on Class-IV

post but having not considered in right perspective, the

impugned order requires interference.

20. Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the

State of Jharkhand, has submitted by referring to paragraph

8 of the counter affidavit wherein the details have been given

regarding the steps taken by the Employment Exchange,

Dumka to whom the requisition was made by the Bank.

21. It has been submitted that the requisition dated

30.11.2009 of the respondent Bank was received in the

Employment Exchange, Dumka with a categorical reference

that the upper age limit will be relaxed by 20 years for the

experienced/daily wages workers of the erstwhile Santhal

Pargana Gramin Bank/Vananchal Gramin Bank and they

will be given preference in the appointment.

22. A list of 12 such employees was also enclosed with the

letter and it was requested to sponsor the names along with

other candidates. It has further been stated therein that after

receipt of the letter along with the list, it was ordered by

Respondent No.6 to call all the working employees along with

their certificates on 12.12.2009 and an office order to this

effect was published in the official notice board.

23. The further statement was made that the name of the

writ petitioner did not figure in the said list forwarded to the

General Manager of the Bank.

24. The contention in the backdrop of the aforesaid fact has

been made that the Employment Exchange, Dumka was to

act upon on the basis of the details of the names of the

candidates who have been referred by the Bank for

forwarding and, as such, Employment Exchange, Dumka was

having no jurisdiction to change the name of the candidates

as was sent by the Bank and, therefore, there is no laches lie

on the part of the State.

25. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent Bank, has submitted that by taking into

consideration the eligibility the name of the appellant was not

sent and, as such, there is no laches on the part of the Bank.

The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the

aforesaid fact and more particularly, the aforesaid statement

made by the respondent concerned has not been disputed,

has dismissed the writ petition, which is the subject matter of

the present appeal.

26. This Court, after having heard learned counsel for the

parties and considering the fact which is not in dispute that

the respondent Bank had made a requisition by making a

communication on 30.11.2009 appended with the list of 12

candidates who were having experience so as to provide them

preference and ultimately the name of the writ petitioner was

not referred in the said list.

27. The Employment Exchange, Dumka has sent the details

of the candidates whose names were mentioned in the list

appended with the requisition dated 30.11.2009 and,

accordingly, all the candidates were directed to come with

documents on 05.05.2010. However, the claim has been

made that the requisition sent by the Employment Exchange,

Dumka was received by the Bank on 13.05.2010.

28. It also needs to be referred herein that apart from the

details of 12 candidates as was sought for from the

Employment Exchange, Dumka, the names of the other

candidates were also sought for. Admittedly, the name of the

writ petitioner was not there in the enclosed list having

details of 12 candidates and the Employment Exchange,

Dumka by taking initiative regarding the candidature of the

writ petitioner, has called upon the writ petitioner by issuing

notice as also by notifying in the notice board of the office but

the writ petitioner did not turn up in the office of the

Employment Exchange, Dumka and to that effect specific

stand has been taken in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit.

29. The question arises that when the notice has been

issued by the Employment Exchange, Dumka to the writ

petitioner as per the statement made at paragraph 8 of the

counter affidavit which has not been denied, since, no

rebuttal reply has been filed by the writ petitioner of the

counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, therefore, the

learned Single Judge has considered the aforesaid aspect of

the matter that even in spite of issuance of notice upon the

writ petitioner by the Respondent No.6, the writ petitioner

since has not appeared, now he cannot blame the

respondents either the Bank or the Employment Exchange,

Dumka for commission of laches on their part.

30. This Court, in view of the statement made at paragraph

8 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State having

been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge, is

of the view that the specific stand taken by the State in the

affidavit since has not been rebutted, therefore, the same, if

has been considered to be admitted by the learned Single

- 10 -

Judge, which led the learned Single Judge to dismiss the writ

petition, which according to our considered view, cannot be

said to suffer from an error, reason being that if the notice

has been issued by the Employment Exchange, Dumka, it

was incumbent upon the writ petitioner to present himself

before the Employment Exchange, Dumka for doing the

needful but he has failed to appear and in that

circumstances, it is not available for the writ petitioner to put

allegation of laches or negligence upon the Employment

Exchange, Dumka or the respondent Bank.

31. This Court, in the entirety of facts and circumstances as

narrated hereinabove, is of the view that the learned Single

Judge if by taking into consideration the aforesaid ground

has declined to pass positive direction in favour of the writ

petitioner, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error.

32. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

Birendra/ N.A.F.R.