1. RULE. Mr. Nandish Chudgar, learned advocate appearing for Nanavati Associates waives service of Rule for the respondents.
2. Heard Ms. Abha Makwana, learned advocate for Mr. Ramnandan Singh for the petitioner and Mr. Nandish Chudgar, learned advocate for the respondents.
3. It appears from the record of the petition that the petitioner is casual employee and is serving as Sweeper/Peon with the respondent Bank. It is the case of the petitioner that he has completed 240 days in every calender years and has been employed conditionally, except some breaks of services were given before every next employment. As contended by the petitioner that instead of requiring the services of the petitioner who is working since 1998, the respondent Bank has given a fresh advertisement dated 5.4.2011 published in Lok Satta, Baroda Edition for the same purpose in which the petitioner is working. It is pointed out by Ms. Abha Makwana, learned advocate for the petitioner that this Court in an identical fact situation being Special Civil Application No.12290 of 2011 and allied matters have issued certain directions for consideration of similarly situated persons and therefore, in the interest of justice also, similar directions need to be issued in the present matter also. Otherwise, if the petitioner is made to apply again as per the fresh advertisement, he should be agebarred and therefore, the directions may be issued to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Sweeper/Peon as per the advertisement dated 5.4.2011.
4. Mr. Nandish Chudgar, learned advocate for the respondents has candidly submitted that this Court, while dealing with the identical situation, has issued certain directions and if similar directions are issued in case of the petitioner also, the respondents have no objection.
5. This Court, in the case of Nitin Ashokbhai Chauhan Vs. Bank of India, through Zonal Manager and others being Special Civil Application No.12290 of 2011 and allied matters, has vide order dated 22.9.2011 observed thus: “4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case, more particularly, order dated 15.11.2010 passed in Writ Petition (C) No.10320 of 2010 by Division Bench of Orissa High Court whereby in a similarly situated case, directions were issued to the respondent bank not to refuse appointment to the petitioners on the ground of disqualification on the basis of upper age limit.
5. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the grievance of the petitioners and take decision by keeping in mind the order dated.15.11.2010 passed by the Division Bench of Orissa High Court. It is also observed that in case, if the above order of the Orissa High Court is accepted by Zonal Office of the Bank of India, Bhubhaneshwar the respondent authority shall scrutinize and verify the individual record of the petitioners about completion of 10 years of continuous service with the respondent and decide the grievance of the petitioners keeping in mind the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Umadevi [supra], more particularly para 53 of the judgment.”
6. Considering the above submissions, the respondents are directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner and take decision by keeping in mind the order dated 15.11.2010 passed in Writ Petition (C) No.10320 of 2010 by the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court. It is observed that in case, if the above order of Orissa High Court is accepted by the Zonal Office of the Bank of India, Bhubhneshwar, the respondents shall scrutinize and verify the record about completion of 10 years of continuous service with the respondent Bank and decide the grievance of the petitioner keeping in mind the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and more particularly para 53 of the judgment.
7. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of. Rule discharged with no order as to costs.
mrpandya [R.M.CHHAYA, J.]