- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel representing the respondents No. 1 to 4.
(2.) PERUSED the record. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the selection made by the respondent No. 1 for appointment on the posts of Electronic Ac counting Machine Operators and have sought for the quashing of the select list published by the respondent No. 1 prepared on the basis of the written test held on 11-2-96. They have also prayed for a direction requiring the respondent No. 1 to make a fresh selection on a criteria different to the one adopted for holding the selection which according to them was the only criteria which could be adopted for the purpose as provided for under the rules. Prior to the filing of the present writ petition, the petitioner No. 1 which is the registered Union of which the petitioner No. 2 is the Secretary and the other petitioners are the members had filed Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 5203 of 1996 in this Court wherein the registered Union was arrayed as petitioner No. 1 and its Secretary Sri A. N. Panday was arrayed as petitioner No. 2, impleading the present respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 as respondents No. 1, 2 3. Pleadings of the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5203 of 1996 indicate that the petitioners felt aggrieved by the selec tion process which has now culminated in the select list referred to herein above and had sought for the intervention of this Court seeking to restrain the respondents from holding the selection test for filling up the vacancies in the posts of Electronic Ac counting Machine Operators requiring them to fill up the posts in accordance with law on a criteria other than one which was being adopted for the purpose, as claimed in the present writ petition. The claim of the petitioners in the earlier writ petition was also to the effect that the seniority alone was the criteria which had to be taken into ac count and not the selection test as adopted by the respondents.
(3.) IN Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5203 of 1996 the petitioners had prayed for a direction requiring the respondents not to hold the selection taking recourse to the written test. They had also prayed for a direction requiring the respondents to hold the selection for filling up the vacancies in the posts of Electronic Accounting Machine Operators strictly in accordance with the seniority. The earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners' Union was heard and finally disposed of by this Court vide its judgment and order dated 9-2-96. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents in that case this Court was not inclined to grant any relief as prayed for in the writ petition but instead directed the respondent No. 1 in that writ petition i. e. Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Varanasi who has been arrayed in the present writ petition as respondent No. 2, to consider and decide the representation dated 22-1-96 which had been submitted by the petitioner in that case and a copy of which had been filed as Annexure 3 to the said writ petition. The aforesaid respondent was required to decide the said repre sentation by a reasoned order in accordance with law. A perusal of the representation dated 23-10-96, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition No. 5203 of 1996 indicates that the only grievance raised in that representation was that the majority of the members of the Union had not been adequately informed about the date fixed for the written examina tion which could result in depriving them of the opportunity to appear in the said examination. Another grievance set for th in the aforesaid representation was in regard to the transfer policy. The prayer made in the aforesaid representation was that both the matters be considered and suitable direction be issued so that all the eligible candidates may appear in the examination and no employee could be harassed or ex ploited taking shelter behind the implemen tation of the transfer policy.;