HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 14767 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Ms. Shivangi Bihani, Ms. Shubhangi Yadav, Ms. Sapna Singh and Sri Akash Godhvani, learned advocates for the petitioner and Sri Amrish Sahai, learned counsel for respondent-Bank. 2. It is not under much dispute that petitioner has earlier joined after crossing the hurdle of recruitment process in the year 2020 and joined as Scale 1 Officer at Baroda U.P. Bank. However, when a subsequent recruitment process was initiated in the year 2020 in order to improve her prospect and with a thought that she may work within the State of U.P., therefore, she applied in new recruitment process. 3. She got success that according to her preference, she was appointed under probation in Prathama Gramin Bank in the State of U.P. and she joined on 16.2.2024. 4. It is not disputed that in a dispute of allotment of Bank in regard to preferance of selected candidates, matter reached up to the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal No. 21814-21815 of 2022, whereby the order passed by a Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court was upheld. The Division Bench has passed certain directions which are reproduced hereinafter: "We may hasten to add that if the decision of IBPS not to include 126 vacancies of BRKGB in the recruitment process in question is upheld then it will not only deprive the appellants from appointment in the preferred RRB indicated in the online application form ie. BRKGB but will also hinder prospective candidates from seeking appointment on the post of Officer Scale-11 (GBO) available in RRBs in order of merit. IBPS cannot refuse to recommend names of eligible and suitable candidates to fill up all notified vacancies if the candidates of desired merit are available. Any delay occasioned in filling up the notified vacancies may render many eligible candidates ineligible to participate in next recruitment process. In the light of above discussion, the special appeal is allowed. IBPS is Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sapna Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Sachin Mishra Swati Gupta .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) directed to allot 126 candidates against the post of Officer Scale-II (GBO) to BRKGB in order of merit and preference. The seats falling vacant thereof due to aforesaid exercise in participating RRBs, shall be filled in by recommending suitable candidates to RRBs in order of merit and preference. The entire exercise indicated above shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of this order. No order as to costs. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in pursuance of aforesaid order passed by Rajasthan High Court upheld by Supreme Court, reallocation was done and due to this exercise, present petitioner was allotted Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank i.e. her third option and an order to report was passed by the impugned order dated 8.9.2025. 6. Learned advocates for petitioner have submitted that in the aforesaid circumstances, petitioner has approached this Court that if the respondents have undertaken a correct exercise of allocation of Bank and the petitioner was appointed in a bank, which was not suitable for her, she may not accept the offer of appointment, since she was already working. 7. When a query was put by this Court to learned advocates for the petitioner that reallocation of bank was done in pursuance of judgment passed by Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court as upheld by Supreme Court, therefore, respondents could not be put at default, therefore, even if the petitioner is being prejudiced, Court cannot take a contrary view to the judgment of the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court as upheld by the Supreme Court. 8. At this stage, learned advocates for the petitioner, on instructions, have submitted that he may take a chance before Supreme Court since petitioner was not made a party in the earlier round of litigation that her earlier allocation of bank be protected and also prayed that she may be granted some time to accept the re-allocation but since she was offered appointment in U.P. Gramin Bank, she joined and due to re-allotment, she is prejudiced and aggrieved. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances and taking note of above referred submissions and in the interest of justice, this writ petition is disposed of with an observation that petitioner is at liberty to take any legal, remedy available in accordance with law and petitioner is granted 6 weeks time to report at newly allotted bank in pursuance of the impugned allotment letter. September 25, 2025 SB WRIA No. 14767 of 2025 2 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad