Strange Facts about Numbers #4 Any even number above 2 can be expressed as sum of two prime numbers. 4 = 2 + 2 6 = 3 + 3 8 = 3 + 5 10 = 5 + 5 12 = 5 + 7 and so on. It's not proven yet and so is entitled to be a conjecture. Can anyone name this?
any central bank of india clerk thread here? when to expect joining?
.I am also from cbi dnt know kb tk
got mail from andhra bank reporting on 27th june warangal zonal office plz comment
got mail from andhra bank reporting on 27th june kakinada zonal office plz comment
Anynews about syndicate bank clerk joining.....
If so please do share
Has anyone info that last year in which city the training had occurred of Gujarat Aspirants?At present number of banks are giving training in Mumbai of GJ candidates. #CorporationBank #Clerk
uco bank ?
Andhrabank clerk
KARIMNAGAR ZONE CANDIDATES WHATSAPP ME
738 616 5678
Is there anyone who already joined in any bank through IBPS clerk 5???
Anyone already working at CANARA, please enlighten us more about the joining formalities & training.
Any news regarding ellahabad high court case ?
Court No. - 59
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 22660 of 2016
Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar Tripathi And Another
Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Seemant Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Ashok Trivedi
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
It is submitted that once the process of selection had commenced, it was not open for the respondents to have changed the rules of selection, and the decision to do away with interview, at an advance stage of the selection proceedings, is contrary to the law settled.
Notices on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 3 have been accepted by Assistant Solicitor General of India, whereas Sri Ashok Trivedi has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.2.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 submits that there are no factual issues involved, and that the legal proposition shall be addressed at the stage of initial hearing of the matter itself. On the request so made by the learned counsel for the respondent,
put up as fresh on 23rd May, 2016.
Order Date :- 17.5.2016
Anil
Court No. - 59
Case :-WRIT - A No. - 22660 of 2016
Petitioner :-Praveen Kumar Tripathi And Another
Respondent :-Union Of India And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :-Seemant Singh
Counsel for Respondent :-A.S.G.I.,Ajay Singh,Ashok Trivedi
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the process of selection has been concluded, and that a reply will be filed in the matter, within three weeks.
Sri Ajay Singh and Sri Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondents, pray for and are granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Petitioners will have one week thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.
Let this matter appear in the second week of July, 2016.
It is provided that any selection undertaken, pursuant to advertisement in question, shall be subject to the final orders to be passed in the writ petition.
Order Date :-25.5.2016
Anil
Ibps 5 clerk kon kon se bank ki joining ho chuki ya aa gyi
last year cbi clerk ki training kaha hui thi ?? for gujarat candidate
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
O R D E R
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5792/2016
Mahipal Singh & Ors.
Vs.
The Institute of Banking Personnel Selection
Date of Order: 18.05.2016
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
Mr. S.K. Singodiya, for the petitioners.
****
The petitioners, in the instant writ application, are aggrieved of notice dated 9th March, 2016, wherein the criteria of recruitment process for Clerks in participating Organizations (CWE-Clerks-V); has been changed from written examination and interview in the ratio 80:20 to 100% weightage with reference to score obtained by the candidates in the online Main Examination of CWE-Clerks-V.
Briefly, the skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy are that the petitioners being eligible, submitted their applications for consideration of their candidature in response to the advertisement that was displayed on the website of Institution of Banking Personnel Selection (for short, 'IBPS'), in the recruitment process for recruitment of Clerks.
According to the information/advertisement on the website of IBPS, the online examination (Preliminary and Main) were scheduled to be held in the month of December, 2015 and January, 2016. The criteria for selection was the weightage for written examination and interview in the ratio 80:20. However, vide notice dated 9th March, 2016, IBPS decided at the appropriate level to discontinue the criteria of interview in the recruitment process for Clerical Cadre. Accordingly, the weightage for written examination and interview in the ratio 80:20 has now been changed 100% to the score obtained by the candidate in the online Main Examination of CWE-Clerks-V; of which the petitioners are aggrieved of.
The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondents are not justified in changing the Rules of the game during the selection process or when it is over, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hemani Malhotra Vs. High Court of Delhi: (2008) 7, SCC 11. He has also referred to the opinion in the case of M. Surender Reddy Vs. Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.: 2015 (8) SCC 410; to the same effect.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance perused the materials available on record.
In the case of Hemami Malhotra (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court declared the law in the singular facts of that case, wherein the matter was with reference to 'Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination', which involved two stage selection process comprising of written examination and interview (viva voce), wherein minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce were prescribed after written examination.
Needless to observe that the 'Judicial Service' cannot be equated with other services for the nature of duties required to be discharged by a 'Judicial Officer'. Hence, separate conditions of service so also the criteria for selection can be prescribed for the candidates while making recruitment of Judicial Officers. Moreover, the dispute in the case of Hemani Malhotra (supra) was only restricted to the minimum marks prescribed for viva voce. Thus, the law referred to and relied upon is of no help to the petitioners in view of the different and distinguishable facts of their case.
In the case of M. Surender Reddy (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the controversy with reference to the advertisement that was issued in the year 1999, and the relevant Government order could not be given effect from retrospective date. Moreover, the controversy in the case of M. Surender Reddy (supra) involved the amending of the procedural law regarding reservation in the matter of selection to posts with retrospective effect after the procedure of selection started, which is not the case here.
Since the policy decision has been arrived at an appropriate level to do away with the interview in the recruitment process and all the candidates are to be assessed as to their merit position on the weightage of the marks secured in the written examination, the petitioners cannot complain of any discriminatory treatment as well. The decision to dispense with the interview in the recruitment process involved herein appears to be in consonance with the policy decision of the Union Government in favour of doing away with the practice of holding interview in junior level posts. The decision to dispense with the interview particularly at junior level service like Group III & IV has been perceived to be unnecessary to determine the suitability of a candidate and sometimes the process of interview facilitates scope for manipulation, manoeuvrability and corruption. Thus, the action not only be in larger public interest but would also be in the interest of those candidates who lack resources and come from lower strata of society suffering with socio-economic constrains.
For the reasons and discussions aforesaid, this Court does not find any illegality in the action of the respondents and doing away with the interview, which is a welcome step in consonance with the policy of the Union Government.
Consequently, the writ petition is devoid of any substance and lacks in merit, and therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
Ordered accordingly.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J.
Pcg/216
Strange Facts about Numbers #5 145 has a unique property, the sum of the factorials of it's digits gives you the number itself. So, 1! + 4! + 5! = 145. Can be useful for XAT alphanumeric questions.#XAT There are a lot of numbers that possess similar property. Can you find any one of them? #Numberrs
currently working as scale 1 officer.
CBI asking discharge certificate in training but i have to serve notice period in current bank for one month.
what should i do now?
UCOwaaaaaaa.......................marrrrrr jaaaa tuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
Frnds anyone have information abt DV of United Bank of India???????