Rajiv Ranjan v. Union of India & Ors

judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. I. For orders, see W.P.(C) No.3024/2011. (pradeeTnaS^jog) JUDGE (INDERMEET KAUR) JUDGE May 18, 2011/dk *iN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 18^" May, 2011 + W.P.(C) 3024/2011 BIKRAM SINGH Petitioner Through: Mr.Arvind Nayar, Mr.Shubhanshu Singh, |Vir.Vil<as Kumar and [Vis.Neha Kushwaha, Advocates. versus UOI ORS. Respondents A Through: Mr.A.S.Chandhiol<,ASG with Mr.Ravinder Agarwal, Mr.Nitish Gupta, ^ Mr.G.S.Parwanda&Mr.SandeepBajaj, Advocates for R-1 to 3. Ivir.Rajat Arora, Advocate for R-4. W.P.(C) 3025/2011 AJAY KUMAR AHIRWAR Petitioner Through: Mr.Arvind Nayar, Mr.Shubhanshu Singh, Mr.Vil<as Kumar and Ms.Neha Kushwaha, Advocates. versus UOI & ORS;. Respondents Thrg-aah: Mr.A.S.Chandhiol<, ASG with l^tr-Ravinder Agarwal, Mr.Nitish Gupta, Mr.G.S.Parwanda & Mr.Sandeep Bajaj, Advocates for R-1 & 2. Ms.Rachana Joshi Issar, Advocate for R-3 & 4. W.P.(C) 3031/2011 PELLETI HEMANTH KUMAR Petitioner Through: Mr.Arvind Nayar, Mr.Shubhanshu Singh, Mr.Vikas Kumar and Ms.Neha Kushwaha, Advocates. versus , W.P.(C)No.3024/2011&connectedmatters Page 1of19 I UOI & ORS. Respondents Through: Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, A5G with Mr.Ravinder Agarwal, Mr.Nitish Gupta, . Mr.G.S.Parwanda & Mr.Sandeep Bajaj, Advocates for R-1 & 2. Mr.Rajat Arora, Advocate for R-3 & 4. W.P.(C) 3092/2011 SATISH K. JHA Petitioner Through: Mr.Arvind Nayar, Mr.Shubhanshu Singh, Mr.Vikas Kumar and Ms.Neha Kushwaha, Advocates. versus UOI & ORS. Respondents Through: Mr.A.S.Chandhiol<, ASG with Mr.Ravinder Agarwal, Mr.Nitish Gupta, Mr.G.S.Parwanda & Mr.Sandeep Bajaj, • Advocates for R-1 & 2. Ms.Rachana joshi Issar, Advocate for R-3 Si 4. W.P.(C) 3203/2011 RAJIV RANJAN Petitioner Through: Mr.Arvind Nayar, Mr.Shubhanshu Singh, Mr.Vikas Kumar and Ms.Neha Kushwaha, Advocates. versus UOI & ORS. Respondents Through: Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, ASG with Mr.Ravinder Agarwal, Mr.Nitish Gupta, Mr.G.S.Parwanda & Mr.Sandeep Bajaj, Advocates for R-1 to 3. Mr.S.S.Lingwal, Advocate for R-4 & 5. W.P.(C) No.3024/2011 & connected matters W.P.(C) 3204/2011 SUDARSAN MAHARANA Petitioner Through: jvir.Arvind Nayar, Mr.Shubhanshu Singh, Mr.Vikas Kumar and Ms.Neha Kushwaha, Advocates. versus UOI & ORS. Respondents Through: Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, ASG with Mr.Ravinder Agarwal, Mr.Nitish Gupta, Mr.G.S.Parwanda & jVlr.Sandeep Bajaj, Advocates for R-1 to 3. IMr.Rajat Arora, Advocate for R-4 & 5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

¶1Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not?

¶3Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIQG. I. 1-On

1.11.2010 Punjab & Sind Bank invited applications from eligible candidates for selection appointment as Specialist Officer-JMG-Scale 1, expressly stating that the post was in the scale of pay n4500-^25700. Seeking permission to compete at competitive examination to be conducted by Punjab & Sind Bank, Bikram Singh the writ petitioner of WP(C) No.3024/2011 applied through the Unit Commandant for his application to be sent to the bank and the Unit Commandant forwarded the same to the bank. It be noted that Bikram Singh had joined W.P.(C) No.3024/2011&connectedmatters Page 3 of19 # service as an Airman on 9.5.2003 by 9.5.2010 had rendered 7 years' service under tlie Air Force.

¶2In September 2010, Bank of Maharashtra invited applications from eligible candidates for selection appointment as a Probationary Officer since neither Satish Kumar Jha the writ petitioner of WP(C) No.3092/2011 nor Ajay Kumar Ahirwar writ petitioner of WP(C) No.3025/2011 have disclosed what was the scale of pay notified by the bank for the post in question and have also not filed the Public Notice issued by the bank while inviting applications from the eligible candidates, we do not know the scale of pay of the post in question. The two applied through the Unit Commandant for their applications to be sent to the bank and the Unit Commandant forwarded I same to the bank and relevant would it be to note that by time they submitted their applications to Unit Commandant, the two had rendered 7 years' service under the Indian Air Force.

¶3Rajiv Ranjan writ petitioner of WP(C) No.3203/2011 got his application forwarded in August 2010 through his Unit Commandant to the United Bank of India after he had served the Indian Air Force for 7 years. The post he had applied for was that of a Probationary Officer in the United Bank of India in the pay-scale ?14,500-^25,700.

¶4The remaining writ petitioners i.e. Sudarsan Maharana Pelleti Hemanth Kumar, after rendering years' service under Indian Air Force got forwarded through the Unit Commandant their applications for being W.P.(C) No.3024/2011&connected matters Page4 of19 # # appointed as a Probationary Officer witli Banl< of India for post of Probationary Officer in the pay-scale ^14500- ^25700 and the date on which they so applied was in the month of August 2010.

¶5It is thus not in dispute that the 6 writ petitioners had got their applications forwarded through Commandant of their respective Unit to respective banks in the months of August, September and November 2010.

¶6The grievance of the writ petitioners is to the Air Force Authorities not granting the necessary No Objection to them thereby relieving them to join respective bank inasmuch as the writ petitioners have successfully cleared the selection process initiated by the respective banks to whom the writ petitioners had applied for. employment.

¶7Since the last date by which the writ petitioners had to join the respective bank had either lapsed or was likely to lapse in the next 4 or 5 days and since respective counsel for the banks told the Court that they cannot keep a post vacant for the writ petitioners inasmuch as whether joining as a Probationary Officer or as Specialist Officer-JMG, all recruited persons have to undergo training during the period of probation upon successful completion of training are permanently absorbed in the banks and that training is imparted to a group with specialized teachers in the field imparting training in banking and that the banks would not be in a position to give training to individuals if the writ petitioners were to join later and that the training W.P.(C) No.3024/2011&connected matters Page5 of 19 # was to commence in the month of June 2011, arguments were heard in the writ petitions without awaiting a counter affidavit inasmuch as the facts were not in dispute and thus on facts no response was required. A legal issue arose for consideration and for which the necessary documents were filed by writ petitioners. Thus, we have heard arguments on 16.5.2011 and had indicated in the order of said date that judgment would be pronounced oh 18.5.2011.

¶8Pertaining to permission to be granted to Airman to apply for civil posts/services under the Central and the State Governments and Public Sector Undertakings, vide Air Force Order No.14/2008 issued on

19.9.2008, extensive guidelines have been issued and undisputably the case of the petitioners with respect to the relief sought has to be adjudicated in terms of the said Air Force Order.

¶9Relief sought by the writ petitioners is that a mandamus be issued to Air Force Authorities to forthwith issue No Objection certificate to them to join the respective bank which has issued a letter of offer to the petitioners further to relieve petitioners for so joining.

¶10Para 1 of the Air Force Order No.14/2008 reads as under:- "Airman/NCs(E), who have completed seven years of service from the date of enrollment, are permitted to apply for civil posts under Central/State Government Public Sector Undertakings including Para-Military Forces. Non-Govt organizations

(NGOs)/Trusts, even if funded W.P.(C) No.3024/2011&connectedmatters Page 6of19 # by the Government shall not be covered in the permissible category of posts. The categories of posts, corresponding length of service eligibility are to be determined as given below. Category Length of Service Permissible Categories of civil posts a 7 yrs

(A) Group 'A' or equivalent posts (maximum of the pay scale not less than ^13500, as revised from time to time)

(B) Group 'B' or equivalent posts (maximum of the pay scale not less than ^9000 but less than ^13500, as revised from time to time) B 15 yrs Category-1 above and any other post except temporary/contractual post and Private Sector. c III 18 years (having submitted unwillingness or denied extension of engagement) Category 1, II above and any other post in Private Sector including temporary/contractual posts or engagement on deputation.

¶11Notwithstanding the imperfect use of language under caption 'PERMISSIBLE CATEGORIES OF CIVIL POSTS' and to highlight the imperfection we may only state that in para (b) pertaining to Category-! one could have simply written: Group 'B' or equivalent posts having minimum pay of ?9,000/- and maximum fl3,500/- rather than to say: in the pay-scale not less than ^9,000/- but less than ?13,500/-. Be that as it may, relevant would it be to W.P.(C) No.3024/2011 & connected matters # state that as per para 1 it stands stipulated that minimum years service must be rendered before permission can be granted to an Airman to apply for and proceed to join upon selection, a Group 'A' or a Group 'B' or an equivalent post. We are not concerned with Category-ll and Category-Ill thus we do not expand on said categories.

¶12Then comes into play para 2 of Air Force Order No.14/2008, which reads as under:- "2. All applications for above categories of posts will be directly forwarded to prospective employers by units after verifying eligibility including criticality of manpower. Application of airmen belonging to critical trades shall be rejected at unit level. However, the condition of criticality will not be applicable to the applicants of Category lA and III above, in whose case the applications will be forwarded despite criticality in their trades. The criticality of trades will be updated by Air HQ twice a year, in June and December and would . be intimated to Stns/Units through their respective Command HQs. Airmen who are on deputation to ARC are also eligible to apply for civil posts as per Para above their applications to be processed through PHS C/0 AFCAO, where unit copy of service documents of ARC deputationists are held. Forwarding of applications shall not be construed as acceptance to grant NOC, which shall be issued as per the procedure laid down in subsequent paras of this AFO."

¶13Relevant would it be to highlight that the last sentence of para 2 of the Air Force Order makes it clear that forwarding of applications shall not be construed as acceptance to grant NOC, which shall be issued as per the procedure laid down in subsequent paras of this AFO. W.P.(C) No.3024/2011&connectedmatters Page 8of19

¶14Paragraph of the Air Force Order becomes relevant in view of the last sentence of paragraph 2 above and it stipulates as under:- "7. Application for NOG is to be submitted by individual after receiving call letter for the interview/verification of documents or after result of written test where selection is based on success in written test only. However, in all cases NOC is to be obtained by the individual invariably before submitting application for discharge on being selected for the post."

¶15Now the problem. If the person concerned seel<s permission to join an organization on a civil post in Group 'A' or equivalent, the requirement is that the maximum of the pay-scale has not to be less than ^13,500/- as revised from time to time and for this post, as per paragraph 2 of the AFO, criticality in the trade has not to be considered. If however, the post is in Group 'B', criticality in the trade would be a criteria for not releasing the person concerned. In other words there is no absolute right in an Air Force Personnel to proceed to a Group 'B' or equivalent post whereas such absolute right is available qua a Group 'A' post, upon the condition of having rendered 7 years service. The fact on which the problem has arisen in the instant writ petitions is the scale of pay on which the petitioners seek to join i.e. whether post they are seeking to join is equivalent to Group 'A' or is it equivalent to Group 'B'.

¶16Save and except for one post where the scale of pay has not been disclosed by the writ petitioner thereof, all others seek to join a bank in the pay-scale ?14,500-^25,700. Para 1 of the Air Force Order, refers to Group 'A' or W.P.(C) No.3024/2011&connectedmatters Page 9 of19 equivalent post as a post where the maximum of the pay-scale is not less than n3,500/- uses further expression: 715 revised from time to time'. The petitioner's claim that posts to which they proceed has maximum in the scale, sum of ^25700/- it is apparent that the said amount is not less than ^13500/- and thus they claim an absolute right to be released from service. The Air Force Authorities would allege that when AFO 14/2008 was issued on 19.9.2008, the Government of India circular in vogue, classifying posts in Group 'A', 'B', 'C and 'D', stipulated as under:- S.No. Description of Posts Classification

¶1A Central Civil Post carrying a pay or a scale of pay with a maximum of not less than ^13500. Group 'A'

¶2A Central Civil Post carrying a pay Group 'B' or a scale of pay with a maximum of not less than ?9000 but less than ^13500.

¶3A Central Civil Post carrying a pay Group 'C or a scale of pay with a maximum of over ^4000 but less than ^9000.

¶4A Central Civil Post carrying a pay Group 'D' or a scale of pay with the maximum of which is ^4000 or less.

¶17It was only on 9.4.2009 that the Government of India issued a revised order with respect to classification of posts, stipulating as under:- SI.No. Description of Posts Classification of posts

(a) A Central Civil post in Cabinet Secretary's scale (^90000-fixed), Apex Scale (?80000-fixed) Higher W.P.(C) No.3024/2011 & connected matters s # f Administrative Grade plus scale (^75500-80000); ,(b) A Central Civil post carrying following grade pays:- ?12000, nOOOO, ?8900 ?8700 In scale of pay of ^37400-67000 . in Pay-Band-4, ?7600, ?6600 ?5400 in the scale of pay of ^15600-39100 in Pay-Band-3. Group 'A'

¶2A Central Civil post carrying following grade pays:- ^5400, ?4800, ?4600 and ^4200 in the scale of pay of ?9300-34800 in Pay-Band-2. Group 'B'

¶3A Central Civil post carrying following grade pays:- ?2800, ^2400, ?2000, ^1900 and ^1800 in the scale of pay of ^5200-20200 in Pay-Band-1. Group 'C

¶4A Central Civil post carrying following grade pays:- n300, ^400, neoo, neso in scale of pay of ^4440-7440 in IS Scale Group 'D' (till the posts are upgraded)

¶18The Air Force Authorities would contend that when AFO 14/2008 was promulgated on 14.9.2008 it had referred to the classification of posts with reference to the Government of India classification then in vogue. It be highlighted that with the acceptance and implementation of 6^'^ Central Pay Commission recommendations, with effect from 1.1.2006, the pay-scales were revised into pay-bands and the actual acceptance and implementation took place around October 2009 with retrospective effect and this is the reason why when AFO 14/2008 was issued it referred to the scales with reference to the previous scales W.P.(C) No.3024/2011&connectedmatters Page 11 of19 # and further this is the reason why it was made clear that the scale mentioned would be as revised from time to time.

¶19Now, one thing is clear. To be entitled to the benefit of the post in Category-l(A) of AFO 14/2008, essential requirement has to be that the post has to be in a pay-scale maximum of which is not less than ^13,500 as revised from time to time, meaning thereby corresponding figure/sum as per the Government of India Office Order dated 9.4.2009 would have to be looked into.

¶20It was urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that we have no material wherefrom it can be gathered that the post to which the petitioners had applied, as per the advertisement issued, disclosed pre-revised or revised scales of pay. We agree. Unfortunately, learned counsel for the banks could throw no light. But, all learned counsel were in agreement that in terms of industry level settlement dated

27.4.2010 where all public sector banks unions of the employees had hammered out a settlement, pay-scales had to be revised as per settlement.

¶21Thus, one issue of law admittedly gets settled, being that, reference in the pay-scale being not less than ?13,500 pertaining to Group 'A' post in AFO 14/2008 is with reference to the pay-scale prior to the implementation of the 6^'' Central Pay Commission's recommendations and the corresponding sum would have to be worked out with reference to the latest Office Memorandum issued by the Government on subject relevant content whereof has been extracted by us in para 17 above. W.p.(C) No.3024/2011&connectedmatters Page 12of19 f

¶22. We may note that on

22.5.2009 Air Headquarters had issued a clarificatory order in harmony with what we have observed herein above.

¶23Thus, the only relief which the petitioners can obtain is requiring a direction to be issued to the respective bank to forthwith convey to Air Force Authorities whether pay-scale referred to in the advertisements issued by respective bank pursuant whereto petitioners applied were the pre-revised or the pay-scales after revision, and if the pay-scales were pre-revised, corresponding scale post-revision. Thereupon, Air Force Authorities would do the needful if the information provided is that the scales of pay were pre-revised, by taking into consideration the revised scales of pay, if the posts are a Group 'A' post in the pay-scale maximum of which is not less than the sum equivalent to ^13,500/-, post revision, to grant necessary No Objection to the petitioners without considering the criticality of the trade; and if the information provided by the bank is that the advertisements referred to the revised scale of pay, issue of criticality would be considered and if not found critical to the trade in which the respective petitioner is working, to issue the necessary No Objection Certificate.

¶24But before we issue the formal directions, we deal with a four-fold submissionurged by Sh.Arvind Nayar, learned counsellor the writ petitioners. With reference to a decision dated 2.2.2011 authored by one of us, namely Pradeep Nandrajog,]., deciding a batch of writ petitions, lead matter being Sot.Gedela Yuaankar 1/5. UO! & Ors. W.P.(C)No.3024/2011&connectedmatters Page 13 of19 L, / i WP(C) No.722/2010, learned counsel urged that considering AFO 14/2008, on the principle of legitimate expectation, relief was granted to the writ petitioners therein and thus counsel claims parity on principle of legitimate expectation.

¶25The argument is mis-founded inasmuch as legitimate expectation of the writ petitioners in the batch of writ petitions decided vide decision dated

2.2.2011 was considered in light of the fact that said writ petitioners had applied when AFO Order No.4/2007 dated

1.6.2007 was in force. They had cleared the written examinations by the time AFO No.14/2008 had come into being and we had noted that the said writ petitioners had commenced relay race under the terms of AFO No.4/2007. and had a legitimate expectation that they would be permitted to complete the relay race under the said AFO and thus had held that the revised AFO 14/2008 could not defeat their legitimate expectation. We have highlighted herein above that the instant writ petitionershave commencedtheir relay race after AFO 14/2008 had come into effect on 19.9.2008 and AFO No.4/2007 had stood superseded.

¶26Our observations pertaining to the applications being forwarded by the Unit Commanders being the foundation for legitimate expectation in the said decision have to be read in light of the clarificationwe have penned in the preceding paragraph 25 herein above and not as widely projected by learned counsel, that merely because the Unit Commandantforwardedthe applicationwould give birth to a legitimate expectation. Second reason to W.P.(C) No.3024/2011&connectedmatters page 14 of19 i distinguish said judgment is that issue raised therein was when would date on which 7 years minimum service required to be rendered has to be recl<oned, which is not the issue in the instant writ petitions.

¶27Learned counsel made a second submission for which reference was made to two decisions of a Bench of which one of us, namely Pradeep Nandrajog, J., was a member of, being the decision dated

3.2.2011 in WP(C) No.505/2011 Braiesh laiswal vs. UOl & Ors. wherein pertaining to a Probationary Officer in the Central Bank of India and WP(C) No.7482/2010 Abhishek Kumar Sinah Vs. UP! & Ors. in which another officer who desired to join Life Insurance Corporation of India, a mandamus was issued to forthwith issue No Objection Certificates notwithstanding the applicable pay-scales for said posts were ?14,500- ?25,700 i.e. the same as in the instant writ petitions (save and except one in which applicable pay-scale is not known) and thus counsel would submit that instant writ petitioners are entitled to be treated at par, more so for the reason the department had implemented the mandamus issued qua said two persons.

¶28Sh.A.S.Chandhiok,learned ASG fairly conceded that the department was at fault by not consideringthe material now placed before this Court with respect to the pay-scales mentioned, in AFO 14/2008 with reference to the pre-revised pay-scales and not drawing attention of this Court to the Government of India order dated. 9.4.2009, relevant extracts whereof have been noted in para 17 above as also ignoring that the Air Force Authorities had W,P.(C) No.3024/2011&connectedmatters Page 15 of19 ft a issued a clarificatory order on 2.5.2009 and thus learned counsel would urge that merely because, in the past, Air Force Authorities acted under a mistaken notion, would be no ground to plead estoppel against Air Force Authorities.

¶29We agree. There cannot be any equality and a wrong can never be a foundation of a claim for equivalence. Further, if it is found that in the past a party was acting under a mistaken belief it cannot give birth to a plea of estoppel in the mouth of a 3^^ party. Estoppel is founded when a person shows that acting bona fide upon the representation of the opposite party the person concerned has altered his position, thereby estopping the party making the representation from resiling from or withdrawing the same.

¶30The petitioners may feel discriminated against, in that a few of their colleagues have sneaked past on equivalent posts, but this would be their feeling and not the opinion of the law inasmuch as if some persons are wrongly permitted to sneak across and the error of permitting them to sneak across is detected, thereby not permitting others to sneak past, would not amount to discrimination in the eyes of the law. It is trite said that what a common man perceives to be wrong need not necessarily be wrong in the eyes of the law vice-versa what a common man perceives to be right need not necessarily right in the eyes of the law.

¶31The third submission urged was that the Ministry of Finance (Department of Financial Services) had issued a W.P.(C) No.3024/2011&connectedmatters Page 16of19 notification on 13.7.2010 notifying tine Regional Rural Banks (Appointment Promotion of Officers Employees) / Rules 2010 in which various categories of posts were notified in the Regional Rural Banks and all posts in Scale I to Scale V were classified as group 'A' posts and that the posts to which petitioners have been issued letters of offer are in Scale I i.e. are group 'A' posts.

¶32The submission has no legs to stand on for the reason there may be a different criteria for categorizing posts in the banking sector vis-a-vis their categorization for civil services. What is of relevance is para 1 of the Air Force Order No.14/2008 where group 'A' post is not the sole criteria but only such group 'A' posts the maximum of the pay scale whereof is not less than ^13,500/- as revised from time to time. Thus, for the purposes of para 1 of the Air Force Order No.14/2008 the essential condition has to be that the maximum of the pay scale for the post has to be not less than ?13,500/- as revised from time to time. We have already discussed hereinabove the effect of the figure '^13,500/-' being qualified by the expression 'as revised from time to time'.

¶33Last submission urged that this probably was the last chance for the petitioners to take a competitive examination for a Group 'A' post or an equivalent post and thus in equity the petitioners be allowed the relief prayed for.

¶34Our sympathies for a cause, cannot determine the course of the law. If the petitioners are not entitled for something in law, on our misplaced sympathies, we cannot W.P.(C)No.3024/2011&connectedmatters Page 17 of19 create a right.

¶35Entitlement of the petitioners is governed by a policy which we note is AFO 14/2008. It was not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that under the Air Force Act, the petitioners are obliged to serve till the age of superannuation and that other than AFO 14/2008 they have no enforceable right to seek a premature discharge from service and since we have interpreted AFO No.14/2008 by holding that the sum of ^13,500/- referred to in column-3 pertaining to Group 'A' posts is referable to the pre-revised pay-scales language of AFO No.14/2008 itself makes it clear that the reference to said sum would be as revised from time to time, there is no escape but to conclude by holding that the only relief which petitioners would be entitled to would be to issue a mandamus as discussed in para 23 above thus we dispose of the writ petitions directing the respective banks in each of the writ petitions to forthwith convey to the Air Force Authorities whether the pay-scale referred to in the advertisements issued by the respective bank and pursuant whereto petitioners applied were the pre-revised or the pay-scales after revision, and if the pay-scales were pre-revised, corresponding scale, post revision. Thereupon, Air Force Authorities would do . needful if information provided is that the scales of pay were pre-revised, by taking into consideration the revised scales of pay, if the posts are a Group 'A' post in the pay-scale maximum of which is not less than the sum equivalent to ?13,500/-, post revision, would grant necessary No W.P.(C) No.3024/2011 & connected matters Objection to petitioners without considering criticality of the trade and if the information provided by the bank is that advertisements referred to the revised scale of pay, issue of criticality would be considered and if not found critical to the trade in which the respective petitioner is working, to issue the necessary ,No Objection Certificate. The banks would convey the information to the Chief of the Air Staff at Air Headquarters New Delhi within a period of 3 days and within 4 days thereafter the Chief of Air Staff would convey further decision to the petitioners needless to state reasons would be indicated therein. If any petitioner is found eligible to be appointed necessary discharge certificate would be issued within further week thereof in such circumstance time shall, be suitably extended by the bank concerned to enable the said petitioner to join under the bank concerned by taking into account the time fixed by us hereinbefore.

¶36No costs. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE May 18, 2011 dk (INDERMEET KAUR) JUDGE W.P.(C)No.3024/2011&connectedmatters

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : W" May. 2011 + W.P.(C) 3203/2011 RAJIV RANJAN Petitioner Through: Mr.Arvind Nayar, Mr.Shubhanshu Singh, Mr.Vikas Kunnar and Ms.Neha Kushwaha, Advocates. versus UOI & ORS. Respondents Through: Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, ASG with Mr.Ravinder Agarwal, Mr.Nitish Gupta, Mr.G.S.Parwanda & Mr.Sandeep Bajaj, Advocates for R-1 to 3. Mr.S.S.Lingwal, Advocate for R-4 & 5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether