Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he may be permitted to delete the prayer no.2 to the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to delete the prayer no.2 during course of the day.
Learned Chief Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of opposite parties no.1 to 3 and Sri R.K. Srivastava who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
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. The further submission is that the petitioner had been discriminated by ignoring his candidature and now the opposite parties are proceeding with the regular selection for which an advertisement has been published on 26.05.2010 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 :- 29.6.2010 Shahnaz