HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 11684 of 2025 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to delete the opposite party no. 1 from array of opposite parties. The prayer is allowed. The opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are repositioned as opposite party no. 1 to 2 in the array of the parties and this shall be corrected by the learned counsel for the applicants during course of the day. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sarad Dwivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 1 and 2, learned counsel for the State and perused the records. Instant petition has been filed with the following reliefs:- " i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner for the post of Security Guard in SBI pursuant to recruitment. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents to decide the representation dated 11.09.2025 & 04.09.2025 respectively. iii. Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Laxmi Kant Ojha, Ashish Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Anurag Srivastava Saurabh Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Award costs of the petition to the petitioner of the case." Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner applied against a recruitment of State Bank of India, wherein, he was got selected, but a criminal case was pending against him, wherein, subsequently Final Report has been submitted by the Investigating Officer and the trial court has accepted the same. He further submits that the petitioner undertakes that he will place the aforesaid facts and documents before the Bank concerned. He submits that though the timeline was fixed i.e. 24.09.2025, but due to unavoidable circumstances, he could not produce the relevant papers and the documents before the bank authorities. He added that his case may be considered sympathetically by the Bank and he may be granted further one month's time to produce the documents along with the representation before the Bank authority and the Bank authority may be directed to consider the same within the stipulated period of time as may be fixed by this Court. Sri Sarad Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the Bank, though, has made objection to the affect that the petitioner has failed to provide the documents as were required, but he has no objection if the petitioner is still ready to place the documents before the Bank authorities. Considering the submissions of counsel for the parties particularly the fact that the petitioner was selected in a recruitment, conducted by the Bank and the petitioner while submitting the form has disclosed that some criminal case was pending, but he could not produce any document regarding the Final Report submitted by I.O. and the order of the trial court by virtue of which the Final Report is accepted, before the Bank and the last date was given by the Bank on 24.09.2025. This Court finds that the petitioner has undertaken that he will place the aforesaid documents within a period of one month before the Bank, thus, liberty is given to him to produce the relevant documents, regarding the criminal case, before the Bank along with a fresh representation for considering his claim of appointment, before the Bank and if such application is moved within a period of 30 days, the WRIA No. 11684 of 2025 2 Bank is directed to consider and decide the same within further period of 30 days, in accordance with the law. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition is disposed of. October 7, 2025 Mayank WRIA No. 11684 of 2025 3 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench