Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel who has accepted notices for opposite parties no.1 and 2 and Shri R.K. Srivastava who has accepted notices for for opposite parties no.3 and 4.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is working as a daily wager on a class IV post in the College of opposite party no.3 since 1988 and several persons junior to the petitioner were given regular appointment and petitioner had been discriminated agaisnt by ignoring his candidature and now the opposite parties are proceeding with the regular selection and on 26.5.2010 an advertisement has been published in this regard but the candidature of the petitioner is not being considered on account of age bar.
Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to have some force on account of the fact that the petitioner is working with the opposite parties since 1988 and, therefore, his candidature should be considered in accordance with the case of Yamuna Shanker Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, 2007 (2) SCC 611.
Considering the dictum of the Apex Court, it is hereby provided that the candidature of the petitioner will be considered for regular selection and the age bar shall not come in the way of the petitioner.
With the above observations, the petition is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 25.6.2010 Muk