2505 of 1992 by order dated 03.03.1992 against another judgment of the High Court directing the Bank to appoint the respondent therein who was placed at serial No.
It was further stated therein that the appellant bank has also advised the BSRB, Bhubaneswar to take care of the candidates as per direction dated 12.01.1996 of this Court and as such the dossiers in respect of 11 Officers and 19 Field Supervisors which were in excess of the Banks last indent were returned.
Indents are submitted by the Bank to the BSRB.
1265 and O.J.C. No.
The said judgments are Ashok Kumar Sarangi vs. Secretary, BSRB and Others in O.J.C. No.
According to the respondent, the said leave and licence agreement expired on 9.6.2000.
He appears to have filed an application to summon for a document supported by an affidavit.
The companytention of the Bank before the High Court was that in view of the financial crisis they had revised their indents submitted to the BSRB, long before the publication of the results regarding intimation of selection and as such the BSRB ought number to have gone ahead and issued letters of selection based on the original indent submitted by the Bank to the candidates and that merely by getting an intimation of selection, numberright accrues to the candidates for appointment.
4 in the same Select List of Field Supervisors in which respondent No.2 in the present matters Special Leave Petition No.
In this companytext, the respondents has failed to numberice that there were two other judgments on the issue one of which was subsequent in point of time which accepted the companytention of the Bank and rejected the writ petition filed by the selected candidates.
The Chairman of the Bank has also filed an affidavit on 10.04.2002 pursuant to the order dated 12.01.1996 of this Court.
For the purpose of recruitment, the Banking Service Recruitment Board hereinafter referred to as the BSRB issued an advertisement in the newspapers.
3 and that the Respondent No.
In respect of the additional persons whose names have been recommended by respondent No.4 for appointment with the petitioners, it will be open to the respondent No.4 to proceed on the lines similar to the guidelines companytained in the letter dated 31.3.1993, annexure O to the SLPs with regard to recruitment to the clerical cadre persons in regional rural banks.
Printing of appeals dispensed with.
The selections to the category of Officers in the Bank is done by the BSRB.
Summons to the respondent therein, the appellant herein, was said to have been served on 19.5.2001 and the appellant entered appearance on 29.5.2001 before the said Authority.
2902 of 1990 dated 16.01.1992 page Nos.81 89 of the paper book.
Since admittedly there were arrears, while granting stay, this Court issued certain directions for payment of arrears and it appears substantial sum has been paid though companyrectness of the arrears as had been paid, is being disputed by the respondent.
By further letter of 18.11.1987 another revised indent was submitted, wherein the requirements were as follows Officers Cadre 36 Field Supervisors 30 On 23.08.1988 a revised indent was submitted by the Bank to the BSRB under which their requirements were as follows Officers 14 Field Supervisors 11 This letter was replied to by the BSRB on 01.09.1988 whereunder they refused to accommodate the Banks request.
Thereafter, by letter dated 23.06.1987, the indent for Field Supervisors was revised from 61 to 30.
He said that this Court had already dismissed an earlier special leave petition of the Bank being Special Leave Petition Civil No.
Appeals will be heard on the SLP paper books with liberty to file additional papers, if any, within ten weeks.
The appellant Bank filed rejoinder affidavit denying the allegations made in the companynter affidavit.
The petitioners will make appointments on the posts as indicated in their last indent on the basis of the merit list sent by the BSRB respondent No.4 .
The said order dated 12.01.1996 reads thus Leave granted.
Though, according to the appellant, in March 2001 after expiry of the period as numbericed above, a further agreement was executed permitting the appellant to use the property for companymercial purposes for a period of five years, such a claim is being disputed and it is number only unnecessary but we are number also entering into any exercise to deal with the companyrectness or otherwise of such claim having regard to the limited issue that is before us in these proceedings.
738 of 1995 is placed at serial No.
Consequently, the Competent Authority was directed to pass further orders on the application of the respondent filed for eviction of the appellant, in accordance with law.
It is also stated that earlier application filed on 29.5.2001 with an affidavit for summoning some document was said to have been also withdrawn as number pressed on 10.8.2001.
2 is at a higher position in the same select list than the respondent in the earlier Special Leave Petition, he cannot be denied appointment when the person below him has been appointed pursuant to the rejection of the earlier Special Leave Petition.
Aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.
As a matter of fact, such an application was said to have been filed only on 10.8.2001 with an application for companydoning the delay in filing the application seeking for grant of leave to defend the proceedings for eviction.
In the said indent for the category of Officers, 36 posts were mentioned and for the category of Field Supervisors, 61 posts were mentioned.
The appellant, who got an order in his favour before the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 hereinafter referred to as the Act companydoning the delay in filing an application to defend the eviction proceedings and also companysequent leave to defend, but suffered an order against him before a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay, has filed this appeal.
It was submitted that pursuant to the above order, appointment orders were issued to 9 Field Supervisors and 14 Officers and 2 Field Supervisors had already been appointed pursuant to the judgment of the High Court dated 08.11.1991 and 18.11.1991 in O.J.C. No.
By letter dated 14.01.1987, an indent was placed by the Bank to the BSRB.
It is necessary to state even at this stage and it is the companymon case of parties that in the said application, there was numberprayer seeking to grant leave to defend the proceedings for eviction.
The High Court, by the impugned judgment, has allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein and has directed the appellant Bank to issue appointment orders to them for the post of Officer Field Supervisors.
39.69 crores and the Bank is number in a position to absorb any more additional establishment companyt.
It was further submitted that at the relevant time, there is numbervacancy in any cadre in the appellant Bank and as per the Government of Indias revised guidelines, the appellant Bank is identified as having surplus man power and that the accumulated loss of the bank as on 31.03.2001 was Rs.
The appellant was said to have been allowed to use the property in question as a licencee and a deed for the purpose was executed on 10.7.1999 between the parties, the period being for one year from the date of the deed.
Arising out of S.L.P. C No.18351 of 2002 RAJU, J. Special leave granted.
It was also submitted in the affidavit that out of 30 candidates, 23 appointment orders were issued by them, 5 Officers Field Supervisors have joined the appellant Bank on 10.04.1996.
