Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: bsrb in I.Tarakaraman vs Banking Service Recruitment Board, ... on 14 December, 2016Matching Fragments
This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the action of the Respondents in declaring the petitioner as medically unfit for the post of Clerk in State Bank of India, Aurangabad Zone and the petitioner herein prays for a consequential direction to the Respondents to appoint him in the said post.
The facts and circumstances of the case, leading to the filing of the present writ petition are as infra:
2. In response to a notification dated 12.1.1996 issued by the Banking Services Recruitment Board (BSRB), inviting applications for filling up clerical cadre posts in various branches of the Bank in the States of Maharashtra and Goa, petitioner herein had also responded against the vacancies of Aurangabad zone. Thereafter, the petitioner herein appeared for written test and he got qualified in the same and later faced the skill test on 27.10.1996 and subsequently, BSRB asked the petitioner to appear for interview before a Committee and he attended the same on 2.1.1997 and vide letter dated 31.1.1997, BSRB informed the petitioner that he was provisionally selected for appointment in the clerical cadre and allotted to State Bank of India, Aurangabad Zone. The respondents, thereafter asked the petitioner to undergo medical tests between 12.5.1997 and 14.5.1997 and the petitioner had undergone the same and vide letter bearing No.DGM:AUR:PER:112:1960 dated 6.11.1997, the Chief General Manager (PER & HRD) informed the petitioner that he was declared unfit by the Medical Board. The petitioner, subsequently submitted a representation dated 22.11.1997 to the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Mumbai-2nd respondent herein, requesting to review the issue by referring to the duly constituted Medical Board for fresh examination. By way of a letter dated 14.5.1998, petitioner was asked to appear before the Banks Medical Officer at Zonal Office, Aurangabad on 26.5.1998 along with necessary papers.
(iv) That I successfully passed the written examination conducted by the BSRB with the same sight and vision, passed the typing test with same sight and vision and also successfully got through in the personal interview. Thus I am equally capable with the same sight and vision to discharge my duties in the SBI.
4. By way of the said representation, while pointing out the above issues, the petitioner herein sought the intervention of the Chairman in the matter and to issue suitable orders to the Zonal Office, Aurangabad to accommodate him. Subsequently, vide letter dated 7.6.1999, the Assistant General Manager (PER & HRD) reiterated their earlier stand. By way of a representation dated 16.6.1999, the petitioner herein requested the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Mumbai to consider him for appointment as one eyed candidate and gave an undertaking that in the event of further deterioration of his vision in future, he would resign from the post without claiming any benefit from the bank and he also undertook that he would not make any claim to appear in the departmental promotion tests.
17. In the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for deciding the writ petition on merits.
13. In the instant case also, though the petitioner appeared in the qualifying test in response to the notification issued by the BSRB for various posts in the States of Maharashtra and Goa and even though he was medically tested in Maharashtra, the reality remains that he is a resident of Nidadavole, West Godavari district, Andhra Pradesh, which falls under the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and he made correspondence with the respondent-bank authorities from his native place i.e. Nidadavole and the Respondent-Bank authorities also communicated the rejection orders to Nidadavole address only, therefore, the present case clearly falls under clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be contended that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Therefore, the Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the Respondents, holding that this Court, undoubtedly has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.