Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16950 (HP)

Charanjeet Singh v. State Bank of India

2026-03-24

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2026
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “i). For quashing decision of respondents as communicated vide annexure P-14 dated 31.3.2015 wherein petitioner had once again been directed not to report for his duties w.e.f. 1.4.2015 on the incorrect ground that his writ petition bearing no. CWP 8290/14 was dismissed. ii) For issuing a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ for directing the respondents to let the petitioner join as Peon cum Frash i.e. the post against which he has been selected pursuant to annexure P-4. iii) For quashing the condition of eligibility of a candidate followed/prescribed by respondents for the posts of Sweepers/Peon cum Frash as incorporated at annexure P-4 to the extent they debar higher qualified candidates from participating in selection process with further prayer to direct the respondents not to incorporate such unconstitutional conditions in future. iv) For directing the respondents to issue appointment order to the petitioner pursuant to his selection along with all consequential benefits of salary etc. along with interest.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this writ petition are that a post of Peon-cum-Frash was advertised by the respondent-Bank and the present petitioner responded thereto. Copy of advertisement is appended with the petition as Annexure P-5 and perusal thereof demonstrates that the post in issue was advertised for Ner Chowk branch of the respondent-Bank which was reserved for Scheduled Caste category. The petitioner applied for the said post. In terms of the advertisement, a candidate whose educational qualification was less than 10+2, was eligible to apply for the said post. The petitioner participated in the process and was declared as successful but was not offered appointment on the ground that he was possessing qualification higher than 10+2. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed CWP No. 8290 of 2014, titled as Charanjeet Singh vs. State Bank Pathaila and another. When said case of the petitioner was listed before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court on the first occasion, Hon’ble Division Bench vide Annexure P-12, dated 13.11.2014, was pleased to pass the following order:- “CWP No. 8290 of 2014 The petitioner has qualified the examination process of Peon-cum-Frash undertaken by the respondents, but the respondents are not allowing him to join duties on the pretext that he is having 10+2 qualification. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable within two weeks. The Registry is directed to convey the order to the respondents through email, by fax, by ordinary mode and by post also at the expense of the petitioner. List on 4th December, 2014. CMP No.17902 of 2014. The application is disposed of by providing that the petitioner be allowed to join the duties, subject to the outcome of the writ petition. Alteration/modification/vacation on motion. CMP No.17903 of 2014 Granted. The application is disposed of. Copy dasti.” 4. Thereafter, when the matter was listed before the Court on 18.12.2014, the petition was disposed of by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the following terms:- “The grievance of the petitioner is that despite selection for the post of Peon-cum-Frash, the respondents were not allowing him to join, for the reason that he is having higher qualification, i.e. 10+2, whereas the requirement is middle pass. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner stated at the Bar that now, the petitioner has been allowed to join by the respondents, in terms of the order dated 13.11.2014, passed by this Court in CMP No. 17902 of 2014. Her statement is taken on record. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications.” 5. After the disposal of the writ petition, the impugned order Annexure P-14, dated 31.03.2015 was issued by the respondent Bank, which reads as under:- “No. AGM/III//Staff/ 4752. Date: 31.03.2015 Sh. Charanjeet Singh S/o Sh. Pat Ram VPO Nerchowk Tehsil Sadar Distt. Mandi Dear Sir, Court case no. 8290 og 2014 dt. 18.12.2014, in High Court, Shimla Charanjeet Singh s/o Sh, Pat Ram Vs. State Bank of Patiala Joining Stands Dismissed. Please refer to subject above, we wish to inform you that we allowed you to join duty as per High Court order dt. 13th November 2014, subject to decision pending on your petition no. HHC/JUDL/CWP. No. 8290/2014-1. The matter was came before the Hon'ble Court on 18th December, 2014, in view of the same, the petition was disposed of by the High Court as also pending application, on the basis of which the petitioner was allowed to join the duty stands dismissed. The copy of the order passed on 18th December, 2014 is enclosed herewith for your information. The copy of the order passed on 18th December, 2014 is enclosed herewith for your information. Keeping in view the decision of your petition disposed of by the High Court, Shimla, you stands relieved from duty permanently and hereby advised not to report for duty on or after 01.04.2015.” 6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that in light of the fact that the earlier writ petition of the petitioner was disposed of by Hon’ble Division Bench on the statement of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been allowed to join by the respondents, it was not as if the writ petition was dismissed and therefore, the respondent-Bank was having no authority to pass the impugned order by observing that in light of the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner stood relieved. She submitted that the act of the respondent-bank amounts to overreaching the order passed by Hon’ble Division Bench. She further submitted that the writ petition, in fact, was disposed of by the Hon’ble Division Bench in light of the statement made by learned Counsel for the petitioner without there being any objection raised by the Bank before the Hon’ble Division Bench qua the disposal of the writ petition on the statement of learned Counsel for the petitioner and the petition was not dismissed as is mentioned in the impugned order. She submitted that in the peculiar facts of the case as the impugned order is per se bad, the same be quashed and set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent- Bank argued that the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was not taken to its logical conclusion by the Court on merit. He submitted that the petitioner was allowed to join by the Bank on the basis of interim order passed by Hon’ble Division Bench which was subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. He submitted that as the writ petition was not adjudicated in favour of the writ petitioner on merit, the respondent-Bank rightly dispensed with the services of the petitioner vide Annexure P-14 and there is no illegality or infirmity therein. He submitted that as the writ petition was not adjudicated in favour of the writ petitioner on merit, the respondent-Bank rightly dispensed with the services of the petitioner vide Annexure P-14 and there is no illegality or infirmity therein. He further submitted that otherwise also as the petitioner gained the employment by suppressing material facts that he was possessing higher qualifications than what was mentioned in the advertisement, the petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs prayed for. 9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 10. This Court is not going to adjudicate the issue as to whether the petitioner was qualified or not for being offered appointment against the post in issue or whether the petitioner participated in the process by concealing material facts. All that this Court is going to adjudicate by way of this writ petition is whether in the peculiar facts of the case, Annexure P-14 could have been passed by the Court in the mode and manner in which it has been passed. 11. It is evident from the record that after the petitioner participated in the process of selection of post of Peon-cum-Frash, despite his selection on merit, he was not offered appointment on the ground that he was possessing the qualification higher than what was contemplated in the advertisement. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No.8290 of 2014 and Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court was pleased to pass interim order in favour of the petitioner on 13.11.2014, which order I have already quoted hereinabove. Of course, the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench was subject to the outcome of the writ petition, but when the writ petition was finally disposed of by the Hon’ble Division Bench on 18.12.2014, no objection was raised on behalf of the bank, though the bank was being represented that either the interim be vacated or the petition be not disposed of on the basis of statement of learned Counsel for the petitioner as the engagement of the petitioner was only a temporary arrangement in the light of the interim orders passed by this Court. 12. 12. Further, a perusal of the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench on 18.12.2014 demonstrates that after the statement was made by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been allowed to join the services, the Hon’ble Division was pleased to dispose of the writ petition by taking the said statement on record and it did not “dismiss” the writ petition. From this what can be inferred is that the Hon’ble Division Bench was of the considered view that as the grievance of the petitioner stood redressed, there was no need to adjudicate the matter further. 13. Now in these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the Bank would have been well advised either to have had approached the Hon’ble Division Bench, seeking a clarification of the order passed by it on 18.12.2014 or seeking a review thereof, but it had no power to overreach the order passed by the Court and do away with the services of the petitioner by observing that as the writ petition filed by the petitioner stood “dismissed”, therefore, the petitioner was being relived from duty. This obviously amounts to overreaching the order passed by the Court, if not in letter then at least the spirit of the order passed by the Court. This Court again reiterates that remedies were available with the bank, both by way seeking a clarification or a review, but unilaterally it could not have been done what was done by it in terms of order dated 31.03.2015, Annexure P-14. 14. Accordingly, on this count, this writ petition is allowed and impugned order dated 31.03.2015 is quashed and set aside. In light of the fact that the operation of order dated 31.03.2015 was stayed by this Court in this writ petition in terms of order dated 21.04.2015, consequences to ensue. The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.