CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH & ORS. versus CHAIRMAN, PURVANCHAL GRAMIN BANK & ORS.

CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH & ORS. versus CHAIRMAN, PURVANCHAL GRAMIN BANK & ORS.

The appellants have not established sufficient evidence of mala fide or bias; allegations were vague, indefinite, and unsupported. The written test was conducted by the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, Mumbai, not the Chairman; no manipulation or irregularity was proved. The inquiry by the State Government did not indicate any fault in the written examination. Therefore, interference with the High Court's order and the examination process is not warranted.

Parties
Appellants: Chandra Prakash Singh & Ors.; Respondents: Chairman, Purvanchal Gramin Bank & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Disposition by Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Bias, Malafides, Arbitrariness, Promotion, Regional Rural Banks Act, Burden of Proof
Administrative Law Labour and Employment Law Banking Law Bias Malafides Arbitrariness Promotion Regional Rural Banks Act +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chandra Prakash Singh & Ors.

Appellants

Chairman, Purvanchal Gramin Bank & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Disposition by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the written test for promotion in the Gramin Bank was conducted with malafides or bias by the Chairman.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants established sufficient material to quash the examination and selection process.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants have not established sufficient evidence of mala fide or bias; allegations were vague, indefinite, and unsupported. The written test was conducted by the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, Mumbai, not the Chairman; no manipulation or irregularity was proved. The inquiry by the State Government did not indicate any fault in the written examination. Therefore, interference with the High Court's order and the examination process is not warranted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No merit in appeal; parties to bear their own costs; High Court judgment affirmed.