MULK RAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the Bank. The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the advertisement contained in Annexure -1 to the writ petition, by means of which, applications have been invited through Employment Exchange.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Bank has submitted that opportunity was given to the petitioners to apply through Employment Exchange and it was well within the knowledge of the petitioners that advertisement has been made for appointment in the Bank and they did not approach this Court well within time. The last date for submission of application form was 24.1.2013. Some of the persons belonging to the category of the petitioners, filed Writ Petition No. 644 (SS) of 2013. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 6.2.2013 on account of the fact that the persons, who approached this Court were not qualified to be appointed on the post in question. This is the second writ petition filed on behalf of some persons, who are alleged to be qualified.

(3.) THE petitioners are departmental candidates and they are working with the Bank since long. It would have been better on the part of the Bank to give opportunity to the petitioners to participate in the selection. No exception clause has been indicated in the advertisement to indicate that departmental candidates may also apply departmentally or directly to the Bank. The petitioners have been working on daily wage basis.