- (1.) The appellant was appointed as a Seasonal Collection Peon. His claim for regularization was considered and ultimately rejected by the competent authority on 6th of August, 2008 holding that the appellant was over age inasmuch as he was above 45 years of age as on 1st of July, 2008. Hence he could not be extended the benefit of regular appointment.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this litigation are that the appellant having been appointed on seasonal basis in the year 1977, approached the authorities for his regularization as he had already served for more than a decade. He also filed a writ petition before this Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35980 of 2002, which was disposed of on 28th of August, 2002 directing the authorities to consider the claim of the appellant for his regular appointment. It was also contended therein, that one Prabhu Nath, who was junior to him had filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2048 of 1998 before this Court and pursuant to the directions of this Court, the said junior person was given regular appointment. This Court disposed of the writ petition filed by the appellant on 28th of August, 2002 directing the concened authorities to consider the claim of the appellant for regularisation and pass orders in the light of the observations made in the aforesaid judgment. The respondents admittedly took six long years to decide the claim of the appellant and ultimately non-suited him only on the ground that he was overage.
(3.) The appellant claims that his date of birth is 15th of March, 1959 and he submitted that his date of birth was not correctly recorded in the order and even otherwise on the date when the direction was issued by this Court i.e. on 28th of August, 2002, juniors to the appellant had already been extended the said benefits, about which there was no consideration by the learned Single Judge.;