AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Alok Singh, J
Petitioner worked as Peon on daily wage basis with the respondent Bank for 162 days in 1996 and for 20 days in 1997 on stop gap arrangement. In
furtherance of letter dated 25.11.2013 issued by Secretary, Kurmanchal Purva Sainik Evam Navyuvak Uthan Sahkarita, Haldwani â€" an outsourcing
agency, petitioner joined at Khansu, Bhimtal as Class IV employee on daily wage basis but Manager has sent him to Haldwani and on the next day,
his father expired. Thereafter, on 27.05.2014 bank issued an advertisement for filling up 38 posts. Petitioner applied for the same but his application
was not accepted by the respondent bank. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner approached this Court.
Heard Mr.A.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent no. 1 and Ms.
Soniya Chawla, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Advocate for respondents no. 2 to 4 and perused the record.
Mr. A.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner submits that petitioner had filed WPSS No. 385 of 2004 before this Court and this Hon’ble Court
was pleased to dispose of the writ petition vide order dated 05.03.2006 by directing the respondents to consider the petitioner as daily rated Class IV
employee. The petitioner shall also be considered for his regular appointment in the Bank when proceedings are undertaken for recruitment on Class
IV posts. He further submits that respondent Bank defied the order passed by this Court by not considering the candidature of petitioner.
Merely working for 182 days with respondent bank does give any right to the petitioner to get regular appointment. So far appointment qua
advertisement dated 27.05.2014 is concerned, in my view, petitioner has no case. Petitioner had not applied pursuant to the advertisement. It is the
duty of the petitioner to apply within time. From the perusal of record, it transpires that original bank draft is enclosed with the petition as Annexure 9,
which substantiates that petitioner had not submitted his application. In the application form, in column 17 petitioner had not given the details of
certificates, which were enclosed with the application, which was mandatory requirement. Meaning thereby, application was incomplete and was lying
with the petitioner. Further, the last date of submission of application was 26.06.2014 whereas petitioner had got the demand draft prepared on
24.06.2014, so in all probability his application could not reach within time. In para 15 of the writ petition, petitioner has only stated that he had sent the
application by which mode it is not known. As per advertisement, upper age limit was 40 years while petitioner was 46 years old at the time filing of
application.
From the above, it can safely be said that petitioner failed to submit his application with the respondent bank within time and it was with the
petitioner. Even for the sake of argument, if it is presumed that petitioner’s application reached to the respondent bank within time, even then
same would have been rejected on two counts firstly petitioner is over age and secondly it was incomplete and there is no provision to grant relaxation
of age. This Court can neither grant age relaxation nor direct the respondent bank to accept application now made by the petitioner pursuant to
advertisement dated 27.05.2014. In all probabilities, selection pursuant to the advertisement dated 27.05.2014 would have been completed.
In view of the above, prayer sought by the petitioner to give appointment on Class IV post / helper in District Cooperative Bank, Nainital cannot be
granted. Accordingly, petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.