Rakesh Tiwari - (1.) -Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THE petitioner is an under graduate and passed Intermediate (Class XII) examination. He applied for the post of Class IV in the District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Muzaffarnagar. On 16.3.89, he was called for an interview and was selected as a watch boy. An appointment letter dated 9.5.89 was issued to him, which is appended as Annexure-2 to this petition. He was employed for a period of 90 days. THE petitioner joined his duties on 2.6.89 as a watch-boy in the Bank at the rate of Rs. 30 per day. His services as a daily rated workman was terminated on 16.8.89, vide Annexure-4 to the petition. The petitioner was again appointed on 2.11.89 as a daily wage employee for a specified period of 90 days and his services came to an end on 29.1.90. On 7.2.90, the petitioner was appointed yet for another period of 90 days, for sweeping work at the head office vide letter dated 3.5.90. Thereafter, he was not given any appointment. Thus, in a span of one year, he was employed for 204 days.
(3.) IT has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are 86 sanctioned posts of the Class IV employees but only 66 persons are working against these sanctioned posts. The remaining 20 sanctioned posts are still lying vacant in the Bank. IT is alleged that the work on these posts is being taken from the daily wage employees, like the petitioner with artificial breaks in service. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court relating to paragraphs 14 and 16 of the writ petition in which it has been stated that the opposite party has been making fresh appointments for few months and terminates the services of the daily wage employees, like the petitioner.;