- (1.) This intra-court appeal arises from the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 2nd November, 2011 rendered in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.62473 of 2011, dismissing the appellant's writ petition.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the State Bank of India advertised few vacancies of Clerk-cum-Cashier for selection and appointment. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the appellant also applied for the said post and appeared in the written examination and was declared successful hence called for interview, which was to be held on 7th May, 2010. However, in the declaration form, he disclosed about the pendency of three criminal cases against him, i.e. (1) Case No......... of 2000 under Sections 323, 504 & 506 IPC, (2) Case No........ of 2007 under Sections 323, 498-A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 of the D.P. Act, and (3) Case No.........of 2008 under Sections 323, 504 & 506 IPC. The respondent Bank, therefore, keeping in view his involvement in the aforesaid criminal cases involving moral turpitude, decided not to appoint him and, therefore, vide letter dated 23.09.2011, the offer made to appoint him was withdrawn/cancelled. The aggrieved appellant, therefore, filed aforesaid writ petition for quashing of aforesaid order dated 23.09.2011 and further for a direction commanding the respondents to appoint him as Clerk in Gaurabadshahpur, Jaunpur Branch or any other Branch of the State Bank of India of the Zone and to pay salary as and when it falls due.
(3.) The learned Single Judge was of the view that it is not desirable to issue letter of appointment to a person against whom criminal cases are pending even if he has cleared the written examination, interview and has provisionally been selected. The learned Single Judge, therefore, following the judgment of the Apex Court in Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar, 1996 11 SCC 605, dismissed the writ petition. The appellant, therefore, preferred this appeal under the Rules of the Court.;