( 1 ) LEAVE to join Rajendrasinh Gohel as party petitioner No. 2 in this petition. Rule. Mr. Munshaw learned advocate for the respondents waives service notice of rule on behalf of the respondent.

( 2 ) THE petitioner No. 1 in this petition had joined the respondents as a labourer on 10. 2. 1958. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of driver in the year 1964 and he was serving with the respondent corporation till 13. 3. 1995. The petitioner No. 1. Karansinh amarsinh Gohel was examined by the medical authority and on 13. 3. 1995 a certificate was issued declaring him unfit for such a job in the corporation. On the strength of said certificate an order terminating the services of the petitioner No. 1 was passed on 20. 3. 1995. Before this termination order, the son of petitioner No. 1 Manoharsinh had applied under Clause 29 of the settlement for being considered for the post of conductor as per the terms of the said clause and he was selected for the said post. Thereafter he joined the respondent corporation and he is in service with the respondent corporation as a conductor.

( 3 ) AFTER the termination of service of petitioner No. 1, petitioner No. 2 applied for getting employment under Clause 30 of the settlement between the corporation and its employees. Said representation made by the petitioner No. 2 was rejected by passing an order mentioning therein that as the other son of the petitioner No. 1 was already given employment under Clause 29, the application given by the petitioner could not be accepted and the same has been rejected.

( 4 ) THEREFORE, the petitioners are challenging the rejection of the claim made by the petitioner No. 2 for getting the appointment on compassionate grounds under Clause 30. Along with the same by amending the petition, the petitioner No. 1 is also challenging the termination of his services.

( 5 ) THE claim of the petitioners is resisted by the respondents. It is contended that the claim for challenging the termination of services of petitioner No. 1 is hit by delay and laches. The petitioner No. 1 has taken all the benefits of termination order without raising any objection and after taking said benefits, after about 3 years the petitioner has come before this Court. Therefore, the petitioner No. 1s claim to challenge the order of termination should be rejected. It is further contended that in views of the medical certificate issued, the termination is quite legal and valid.

( 6 ) IT is further contended that rejection of the claim of the petitioner No. 2 for getting, appointment is quite justified. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the elder brother of the petitioner No. 2 is already in employment of the corporation and as that employment was given by humanitarian consideration and on compassionate grounds, the claim of petitioner No. 2 could not be entertained. In the circumstances it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the petition should be dismissed.

( 7 ) LEARNED advocate for the petitioners Mr. H. K. Rathod submitted that he is not pressing the claim for challenging the termination of services of the petitioner No. 1. Therefore, in view of the same, I am not going in details regarding the termination of services of the petitioner No. 1.

( 8 ) THERE is no dispute of the facts that there is settlement between the respondent corporation and its employees. The dispute which has been brought up in this petition is covered by two clauses viz. , Clauses 29 and 30. If the above provision 29 is considered then, it would be quite clear that by Clause no. 29, a child of an employee of the respondent corporation is permitted to directly apply for consideration of a post with the respondent corporation, in case if the said employee has completed more than ten years service. Said clause further says that such a direct application could be made by the child provided he has already got his name registered with the Employment Exchange and said registratio