Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 14415 (KAR)

SOMAYYA KAMBI v. THE STATE OF BANK OF INDIA

WP/2816/2024 · 2025-02-03

S G Pandit

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4841 WP No. 2816 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2816 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SOMAYYA KAMBI S/O SHIVALINGAYYA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT HIREBAGEWADI, BELAGAVI-591109 KARNATAKA. 2. SOMAYYA S/O MUDAKAYYA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT CHIVATAGUNDI, BAILWAD, BAILHONGAL-591102 KARNATAKA. 3. VIKRAM NAIKARHIRE S/O CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT BAGEWADIHIRE, BAGEWADI, BELAGAVI-591109 KARNATAKA. 4. JOTIBA KADOLKAR S/O MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT AGASAGE, BELAGAVI-591143 Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4841 WP No. 2816 of 2024 KARNATAKA. 5. SHIVAKUMAR CHAVAN S/O NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT BUDIHAL, SULDHAL, GOKAK-591101 KARNATAKA. 6. SHIVANAND D KENCHANNAVAR S/O DUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT KOCHARI, HUKKERI-591340 KARNATAKA. 7. BASAPPA CHANDARAGI S/O RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NAYANAGAR, BAILHONGAL-591102 KARNATAKA. 8. SAGAR PATIL S/O BALIRAM, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT HANDI VILLAGE, YADOGA POST, HALIYAL 581329 KARNATAKA. 9. DODAGOUDA PARVATA GOUDAGANI S/O MALAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT KOPPAMARIKATTI, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4841 WP No. 2816 of 2024 BAILHONGAL-591125 KARNATAKA. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. VINUTHA K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHRIDHAR NARAYAN HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (HR), HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR, NEW ANNEXE BUILDING, LHO CAMPUS, NO.65, ST. MARKS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T.P. MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT - BANK TO GIVE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT TO THE PETITIONERS AS BANK GUARDS IN PERMANENT VACANCIES IN THE RESPONDENT BANK BY CONDUCTING THE FINAL PROCESS OF SELECTION OF MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF THE PETITIONERS BY THE RESPONDENT BANK AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4841 WP No. 2816 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Heard Smt. Vinutha.K., learned counsel for Sri. Sridhar.N.Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. T.P.Muthanna, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank. Perused the writ petition papers. 2. The petitioners are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of mandamus which reads as follows: i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, direction or any other appropriate order directing the Respondent - Bank to give order of appointment to the petitioners as Bank Guards in permanent vacancies in the Respondent Bank by conducting the final process of selection of medical examination of the Petitioners by the Respondent Bank; ii) AND direct the Respondent - Bank to fix the particular date and intimate the same to the petitioners for appearing for medical test / medical examination as a final process of selection and give them order of appointment as Bank Guards in permanent vacancies in the Respondent Bank. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4841 WP No. 2816 of 2024 3. The petitioners claim that they are all Ex-servicemen and they applied for the post of Guards in the respondent-Bank and the Bank interviewed them along with other candidates. But it is the grievance of the petitioners that they are not aware as to what is the outcome of the interview faced by them. 4. Learned counsel Sri. T.P.Muthanna on the other hand would submit that selection process is completed and out of 25 Ex-servicemen, 09 petitioners who are before this Court are not selected as they are not eligible for various reasons. But it is a fact that the petitioners have not been informed the reasons for their non-selection. 5. In the above circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent-Bank to communicate the petitioners the reasons for their non-selection. Hence, the following: ORDER (a) The respondent-Bank is directed to communicate the result of the recruitment in question and if the petitioners are not - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4841 WP No. 2816 of 2024 selected, the reasons for non-selection within four weeks from today. (b) With the above, writ petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8