- (1.) IN this writ application, prayer has been made for a direction for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the Respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Peon within a specified period.
(2.) PETITIONER 's case in brief is that sometime in the year 1987, he was appointed as Peon in the Central Cooperative Bank, Deoghar. Later, when the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled by the Respondent -authorities, he had preferred a writ application before this Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 1974 of 1990 against the order of cancellation. By order dated 13.8.1993, passed in the aforesaid writ application, the petitioner's appointment was confirmed and the Respondents were directed to consider the application of the petitioner whenever any vacancy arises in respect of the aforesaid posts. Learned counsel explains that by virtue of the order dated 13.8.1993, passed in the aforesaid writ application, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure -A to the counter affidavit, the Respondents were directed to publish advertisements for filling up the posts of Peons in the different branches of Deoghar Jamtara Central Cooperative Bank. While prohibiting the Respondents from making any appointment on temporary basis, the Court had directed the Respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, if he applies in response to the advertisement. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner explains that despite the above order, the Respondents proceeded to adjust as many as 137 employees of the Daltonganj Central Co -operative Bank Ltd., in the different District Cooperative Banks and such adjustment of as many as 11 employees were made in the Bank in which the petitioner is working. Such conduct was done even without issuing any advertisements for filling up the said posts in a regular manner, Learned counsel submits further that vide Annexure -4 on the basis of representation filed by the petitioner, the Respondent No. 4 had issued a letter to the Respondent No. 2 with his recommendation to consider the petitioner's case for his appointment in the light of the orders passed by the Patna High Court in the earlier writ application and also to consider the possibility of the adjustment of the petitioner in the manner of adjustments made in the case of 137 retrenched employees of the Daltonganj Central Cooperative Bank. However, no action has been taken by the Respondent No.2 in this regard. Learned counsel explains further that as a matter of fact the petitioner was also one of the retrenched employees and he alongwith other colleagues, who were retrenched at the relevant time were also entitled to the benefit of the same Scheme for their adjustment against vacancies in the various other Branches of the Bank.
(3.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent NO.4, stating and explaining that although in the earlier writ application, a direction has been given that as and when the Bank wants to fill up the post of peons in the Bank, the same should be filled up after advertising the posts and to consider the case of the petitioner if he applies in response to the advertisement. But no such vacancies were advertised nor was the process for filling up the existing vacancies in accordance with the procedures undertaken till date. It is also sought to be explained that as many as 137 employees of the Daltonganj Cooperative Bank were adjusted against the existing vacancies in the other Branches of the Cooperative Bank but this was done pursuant to a policy decision taken by the State Government on the ground that the employees of the, said Bank had been facing the threats of the retrenchment on account of the Bank going in liquidation.;