1. This petition has been filed seeking the following main relief;
"(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 03.06.2011 passed by respondent and further be pleased to direct the respondent-Corporation to consider the case of petitioners for appointment on vacant Class IV posts in view of the stand taken by respondent in letter dated 14.07.2008 (Annexure 'A' Colly) after giving opportunity to the petitioner for participating in recruitment procedure undertaken by the respondent, in the interest of justice."
2. The facts in brief, as emerging from the record, are that the petitioners herein were appointed on the post of Peon on temporary basis. However, in pursuance of the order dated 18.01.2011 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.953-968 of 2005, the petitioners were not found to be eligible for the post of Sub-staff and accordingly, their services were brought to an end by order dated 03.06.2011. Being aggrieved by the said action of the respondent, the petitioners have preferred the present petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears from the record that the respondent-Corporation had published an Advertisement (Annexure-F to the petition) inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment of persons on Class-IV posts. The qualification prescribed in the Advertisement was that the person concerned, working as Class-IV employee on temporary basis, should have completed more than five years of service as on 18.01.2011 and must be in continuous service as such on the date of advertisement.
4. The aforesaid Advertisement was published in pursuance of the directions of the Apex Court in the order dated 18.01.2011 passed in Civil Appeal No.953-968 of 2005. The case of the petitioners were rejected since it was found that they were not in service as "Temporary Class IV" employee as on 18.01.2011, which was the basic condition. The petitioners did not fulfill the requisite criteria prescribed in the Advertisement and therefore, their case was rejected. The action of the respondent-Corporation is in consonance with the Advertisement and therefore, I find that the Corporation has not committed any illegality or impropriety in rejecting the case of the petitioners.
5. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/* Top