1 2025:CGHC:3300-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 23 of 2025 1. State Bank of India Through Its Chairman, Corporate Centre, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai. 2. General Manager State Bank of India, Central Recruitment And Promotion Department, Corporate Centre, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai. 3. Assistant General Manager State Bank of India, Central Recruitment And Promotion Department, Corporate Centre, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai. 4. Deputy Managing Director (H) And Corporate Development Officer State Bank of India, Corporate Centre, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai. ... Appellants versus Ajay Pal Laharey S/o Shri Laxmi Prasad Laharey Aged About 33 Years R/o Naya Guru Ghasidas Chowk, Bhadrapara Balco, Near Jaistambh, P.O. Balco, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Respondent : None ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.01.20 18:23:17 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 20.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel, appearing for the appellants. None appeared on behalf of the respondent to press this appeal. 2. By way of this writ appeal, appellants have prayed for following relief(s): “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the impugned order dated 19.07.2024 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, W.P.(S) No. 4779/2022 be set aside/quash and the writ appeal may kindly be allowed in toto, in the larger interest of justice.” 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 19.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 4779/2022 (Ajay Pal Laharey Vs. State Bank of India and Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/respondent had been partly allowed with a direction to the appellants to carry out the interview of the respondent within a 3 period of 90 days from the date of receipt of that order. 4. The case projected by the respondent/writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge is that the Bank has not allowed the respondent/writ petitioner to appear for interview scheduled on 13.06.2022 at the office of Director, State Bank Institute of learning & Development, Bhopal, M.P. for the recruitment of Circle Based Officers in State Bank of India in pursuance of Call Letter for Interview issued by the Assistant General Manager with Roll No. 1511000179 & Registration No. 2090075040, without assigning any reason. Moreover, the respondent/writ petitioner possessed all the eligibility criteria as well as essential experience as provided in the Advertisement bearing Advertisement No. CRPD/CBO/2021-22/19. Therefore, the call letter for interview issued by the Assistant General Manager in favour of respondent/writ petitioner. However, due to illegality committed by the appellants, they were not allowed the respondent/writ petitioner to appear in the interview without any valid reason, due to which the legal, as well as the fundamental rights of the respondent/writ petitioner is badly affected. Thus, the entire act and action of the part of the appellants is totally arbitrary, discriminatory and the same is the violation of the Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India. 5. Despite that fact that the respondent/writ petitioner had worked 4 with the appellants on contract basis and the eligibility criteria, it had been mentioned that cadre or employee engaged on contract basis will not be eligible to apply, the learned Single Judge had been allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner and directed to appellants to carry out the interview of the respondent/writ petitioner within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of that order. 6. Challenging the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, instant appeal has been filed by appellants. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. He further submits that impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is not in accordance with law as without considering the entirety of the aspects and therefore, the same cannot be allowed. He further submits that learned Single Judge has committed error of law by partly allowing the writ petition, as such, appeal be allowed and the impugned order dated 19.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, be set-aside. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned orders and materials available on record. 9. Considering the matter in its entirety and after considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the 5 appellants as also perusing the impugned order, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the impugned order observing as follows:- “7. Be that as it may, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, prima facie from the advertisement it does not appear that the contractual employees working in the Bank was debarred. Apart from this, the petitioner is also given call letter to appear in the interview and he was working on contract basis and he is seeking only for appearing in the interview, it could not automatically mean that he would be successful in the examination. 8. As per submission of Mr. Choubey the petitioner's contract has been terminated and as such his candidature cannot be denied only on the ground that he has worked with the respondents on contract basis. Apart from this a copy of fresh advertisement is placed on record by petitioner in which it has been mentioned that cadre or employee engaged on contract basis will not be eligible 6 to apply. Whereas in the advertisement which is subject matter of this petition the contract employees are not debarred to apply. Therefore, the petitioner's right cannot be denied. 9. The submission of Mr. Patankar with regard to the fact that only Courts of Mumbai has jurisdiction to entertain the claim of petitioner is mis-conceived. The examination is also held in Chhattisgarh. The respondents also has branches at Chhattisgarh, therefore, this submission cannot be accepted. 10. Hence, it is directed that the respondents would carry out the interview of the petitioner within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and thereafter proceed further accordingly. 11. With the above observations and directions, this petition is allowed and disposed of.” 10. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons as 7 in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 11. In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu