CHINNAMMA Vs. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself.

(2.) ON termination from service through Exhibit P6 order, the petitioner, being a Sweeper in the respondent Bank, has approached this Court assailing the said order of termination as illegal and arbitrary.

(3.) PER contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank has submitted that it is evident from Exhibit P2 that the petitioner joined the respondent Bank as Part -time Sweeper only on 01.11.2013. Having entertained a doubt about the correctness of the date of birth, as had been submitted by the petitioner at the time of her entry into service, the respondent Bank made enquiries with the school in question. In fact, it has come to light through Exhibit P4 that the petitioner, contends the learned Standing Counsel, was actually born on 26.12.1958 rather than on 26.12.1966.