1) ‘You have been appointed as PO with effect from December 29, 2014 under the OBC quota by giving benefit of the notification issued on March 4, 2014. This notification has been set aside and quashed by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated March 17, 2015. Hence, your appointment in the Bank’s service has become void ab initio and liable to be terminated -

2) your appointment is void abinitio . Chances of success in SC are bleak in case you challenge sacking order

3) not aware as to whether any reply has been filed by centre before SC or not

Hi, Bank can't terminate the employees all of a sudden the employees can go for high court for challenging the same by way of Writ Petition.

reservation is granted by the amendment act which was passed by the parliament so central government is necessary party in this case. Thus its clarification or opinion is necessary to deliver final judgment.

govt is bound to submit its opinion on affidavit. govt cannot ignore it. court wants to take information from the govt regarding legislative status of reservation.

1) Supreme Court has earlier dismissed review petition against order quashing notification for reservation of jats under OBC quota .Sc will not change its decision and make judgment prospective

2) bench held there was no error apparent on the face of the record and the review plea was bereft of merit.

3) we are not aware as to whether extension of time has been sought by centre for filing reply and next date of hearing

4) honestly , I don't think SC will change its decision and make judgment prospective

Kindly let me know whether centre has given reply or not?

You can verify the same from the court through your advocate.

What clarification Supreme Court want/expecting from Centre ?

You can get the certified copy of the notice given by the court to the government in which the points to be clarified can be perused.

In case a candidate become permanent after serving 1 year probation period and suddenly any bank force jat candidate to leave the bank moreover candidate become overage in applying any centre's job, should he go to court against sacking decision?

He can approach the court with a writ petition seeking justice.

The decision by the bank to sakc the employee would be against the natural justice hence he may knock the doors of the court seeking justice and re-instatement.

The court has sought a reply within four weeks.

My main questions were following which have not been answered yet?

1.Kindly let me know whether centre has given reply or not?

2.What clarification Supreme Court want/expecting from Centre ?

See my answers given in the previous question itself.

1. Supreme court has already said that order is not prospective. Legally May SC change its own decision to convert it into prospective?

Since the clarifications are awaited, the clarifications, especially in view of the pressure due to the recent agitation, if given in favor of the employees, the SC may modify its verdict.

2. SC asked Centre to submit reply within 4 weeks but reply hasn't been submitted yet. Has centre asked time extension for submitting reply.

Your lawyer will be better person to answer this question

3.Likely date of next hearing regarding this case?

You can get the information through ecourt too.

4. Being a lawyer what percentage u see decision in favour of students to make order prospective.

Lawyer is not an astrologer to predict the decisions by supreme court in this regard.

1. The case is still pending before the Supreme Court. I am not aware of whether the centre has filed the reply or not.

2. The candidates who had not been issued the letters of appointment cannot claim appointment as a matter of right. They are covered by the judgment of SC. Having said this, the SC can pass any judgment to do complete justice.

The candidates who were not issued appointment letters cannot complain of breach of any right. It seems to be a losing battle that they are fighting,