Decided on November 22,1983

H.R.TINDWANI Appellant


A.S.QURESHI - (1.) The petitioner herein had sought employment with the respondent Bank as a Clerk Grade II/Coin/Note/Examiner by his application dated 22/12/1978 in response to the advertisement given by the respondent Bank in December 1978 The petitioner was asked to appear for a written examination in June 1979 and was given personal interview in November 1979 The petitioner was directed to appear for his medical examination in August 1981 and again in December 1981. Initially there were some doubts about the physical fitness of the petitioner. but subsequently all the doubts were removed and was medically cleared for employment in the aforesaid service. The respondent-Bank had prepared a select list in which the name of the petitioner appeared and he was among those who were to be sent for training at Bombay beginning from 7/02/1983
(2.) On 2/02/1983 the petitioner went personally to the respondent-Bank where the petitioner is said to have behaved in a undignified manner. The petitioner was asked to fill in the application from for appointment which he did not do. It is the case of the respondent-Bank that the petitioner took away the application form with him instead of filling it and submitting it to the Bank authorities. It is undisputed that the petitioner did not complete the form and submit it to the Bank prior to the date on which the batch selected for training was to be sent to Bombay. The petitioner states that he completed the application form and sent it by registered post on 19-2-1983. On the 2/02/1983 the unfortunate incident that occurred on the Bank premises led to certain results which are the subject matter of this petition. The petitioner was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 500.00 at Navrangpura Post office. The petitioner contends that when he went to Navrangpura Post Office on 3-2- 83 and offered the deposit amount of Rs. 503.00 the Officer concerned told him that there were instruction from the respondent Bank not to accept his deposit amount. The petitioner contends that he went to the office of the respondent Bank where the concerned officer refused to entertain his complaint. Hence the petitioner filed the present petition on 3/02/1983 The petitioner claims that he is entitled to be sent for training and given the appointment. He also claims damages by way of compensation for the loss of wages which he would have earned if he had been sent for training and had been appointed as a Clerk.
(3.) The petitioner has mainly contended that the respondent Bank is bound by a promissory estoppel inasmuch as the petitioner was selected for appointment and was to be sent for training and that he had been asked to go through the pre-recruitment formalities such as medical examination filling in necessary forms making deposit etc. His second contention is that as other persons who were junior to him in the select list have been sent for training while he is not sent which is according to him violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.