- (1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of appointment of respondent No. 3 against the general vacancy for subordinate staff members and for a direction upon the respondents for appointment of the petitioner. The brief facts of the case are that, sometime in August, 1993 several names were forwarded by the employment exchange for the appointment of subordinate staff members (Peon) in the Bank of India, Bokaro Steel City. A written examination was conducted and thereafter, the petitioner was called for interview by letter dated 6.8.1994. This is stated in the writ petition that there were 7 vacancies. The petitioner was placed at serial No. 4 in the merit list, however, he was not offered appointment. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the respondent No. 3 was given appointment from the said merit list though his name appeared below the petitioner in the merit list. The petitioner made representations before the authorities, however, his grievance was not redressed and therefore, he has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in which it has been admitted that the respondent No. 3 namely, Sri Bhupendra Lal Das Raman had also participated in the written examination and interview, which were conducted for selecting the eligible candidates for appointment on the post of subordinate staff (peon), and he was below the petitioner in the merit list. It has also been admitted in the counter affidavit that though the respondent No. 3 was not absorbed in the service of the bank, however, as Assistant Labour Commissioner suggested to absorb him, the bank decided to accept the recommendation of the Assistant Labour Commissioner and respondent No. 3 was given appointment. It has been disputed that the name of the petitioner appeared at serial No. 4 in the merit list, rather his name appeared at serial No. 6 in the said merit list. It has also been contended that the present writ petition is barred by constructive res-judicata. After the dismissal of the writ petition, no application seeking restoration of the writ petition was filed and therefore, the second writ petition seeking a similar relief cannot be maintained by the petitioner.
(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.;