- (1.) THE Judgment of the Court was as follows : The grievance of the writ petitioner in this writ petition is that although there are Circulars and Rules for giving promotion but the concerned respondents did not follow the same and gave promotion to the juniors. In the instant case in the year 1997 the process of promotion was started and on 18th November, 2000 result of promotional process was declared wherein the petitioner was superseded.
(2.) IT was submitted by Mr. Chaturvedi that the petitioner orally represented to the respondent authorities but the respondent authorities in spite of assurance did not consider the objection raised by the writ petitioner nor they revised the promotional list of candidates selected for promotion. In the year 1999 a writ petition was filed by one of the similarly situated person being W. P. No. 1151 (W) of 1999 which was disposed of with a direction to give promotion to the writ petitioner in that case. Against that, an appeal was preferred by the Bank in the year 2003 and it was dismissed on 12th March, 2007. Against that, S.L.P. was filed by the Bank, which was dismissed. However, on asking of the respondent authorities, the writ petitioner filed a representation in the year 2007 which was not considered and rejected on 22nd December, 2007, although the writ petitioner in W. P. No. 1151 (W) of 1999 was promoted. Due to rejection of the prayer of the writ petitioner he moved a writ petition on 26th March, 2008 being W.P. 3335(W) of 2008 and the said writ petition was disposed of by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court on 26th March, 2008. At the time of disposal of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner being W. P. No.3335 (W) of 2008, this Court directed the writ petitioner to file a fresh presentation and further directed to consider the same in the context of the application filed by the other writ petitioner Jayanta Chowdhury whose writ petition was allowed before the Hon'ble Single Judge, before Hon'ble Division of this High Court and before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
(3.) AT the time of hearing of the first writ petition filed by the writ petitioner, the respondent authorities did not take the point of delay rather they have submitted that time writ petitioner is not the similarly situated with Jayanta Chowdhury who has become successful before this Hon'ble Court as well as before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Mr. Chaturvedi, learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners submitted representation pursuant to the order dated 26th March, 2008, was given and the respondents issued notice of hearing. After hearing the parties the impugned order dated 5th July, 2008 was passed which is under challenge in this writ petition.;