Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Chief Exec.Offr.,Osmanabad ... vs The Union Bank Of India . on 10 July, 2014
L! ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.6 SECTION XV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 26860/2012
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24/07/2012
in WP No. 6656/2011 passed by the High Court Of Bombay At
Aurangabad)
CHIEF EXEC.OFFR.,OSMANABAD J.S.BK.LTD. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE UNION BANK OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 10/07/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari ,Adv.
Mr. Vatsalya Vidya, Adv.
Mr. Akshat Shrivastava, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Shirish K. Deshpande ,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the Signed order.
(NEELAM GULATI) (INDU BALA KAPUR)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file) Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi Date: 2014.07.16 17:15:36 IST Reason: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6457 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP No. 26860/2012) CHIEF EXEC.OFFR.,OSMANABAD J.S.BK.LTD. Appellant(s) VERSUS THE UNION BANK OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) O R D E R Leave granted.
The appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 24th July, 2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.6656 of 2011.
"In the light of arguments advanced, we direct respondent no.2 to find out an independent agency for effecting recruitment as per requirement and service rules of respondent no. 3 and 4 and to entrust that agency the work of recruitment after obtaining consent of respondents no.3 and 4. The expenditure incurred for the said process shall be borne by respondents no. 3 and 4."
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the respondent-writ petitioner is already in the service of the Bank and he has no locus to challenge the recruitment made by the Bank. Though this question was raised before the High Court but it was not answered. Notice was issued on respondents. But inspite of service of notice they failed to appear before the Court. From the plain reading of the impugned order dated 24th July, 2012, we find that it is a non-speaking order. The Division Bench had not mentioned the claim of the respondent writ petitioner nor discussed the stand taken by the parties. Even the prayer made in the writ petition has not been referred. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned order dated 24th July, 2012 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.6656 of 2011 and allow the appeal.
...........................J. (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA) ...........................J. (S.A. BOBDE) NEW DELHI;
JULY 10, 2014