The court ruled that the rejection of the petitioner's regularization due to age was unjust, emphasizing the need for fair employment practices in public sector entities.

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents to regularize her services immediately after the day of completion of 240 days of her engagement.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that petitioner was working as a casual labour in the State Bank of Hyderabad as a Sweeper since 1994, as per the letter dated 28.10.2000. During the year 1999, vide proceedings dated 06.05.1999, respondents herein regularized some of the people, who are at par with the petitioner, even juniors were considered and regularized. He also stated that petitioner was appointed after conducting proper interview. Though the respondents directed the petitioner to apply for regularization of her service, her candidature was rejected on the ground of “crossing the prescribed age,” and the copy of the rejection letter dated 07.05.2004 is enclosed along with the affidavit. Again, during the month of June, 2004, respondents have regularized the far juniors than the petitioner, who are working in cycle stand, who are no way concerned with the Bank administration or affairs.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further stated that respondents issued proceedings No.GO/AGMS/F.4/NOTE:21, dated 06.05.1999, for augmentation of Subordinate staff at Branch, wherein the petitioner name was reflecting at Sl.No.6. He also stated that there are two sweeper posts vacant in the Bank and the petitioner can be accommodated in one of the posts, as she is entitled for it in view of the lengthy service from 1994. In the letter addressed by the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad to the DGM’s Secretariat, Gunfoundry Branch, dated 28.10.2000, it was stated that it was imperative that adequate subordinate staff strength was maintained at the Branch and they gave the details of 31 workers, who are working as casual labourers in the cadre of sweeper and Messenger duties, in which the petitioner name was shown at Sl.No.5. He also stated that respondents have informed about the necessity of the services of the petitioner as per letters dated 06.05.1999 and 28.10.2000. Therefore, requested the Court to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed the AGM’s Secretariat note dated 06.05.1999, in which the details of the 18 members of the subordinate staff, who are promoted, expired and relieved from the Branch were mentioned. It was also mentioned in the said note that as the total area of the Branch was 88810 Sq.fts, 17 sweepers and 6 lunch room attendant- cum-water boys are required, as such the names of 23 employees were listed for favourable consideration, in which the name of the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.6. In the letter dated 07.05.2004, it was stated that in view of the transfer certificate of the petitioner, she crossed the prescribed age limit and thus she was not qualified for the interview.

5. In the counter filed by the Chief Manager, Treasury Branch in the State Bank of Hyderabad, Head Office, Hyderabad, he stated that in proceedings dated 06.05.1999, there was only a recital to consider the petitioner and others for appointment as sweepers on consolidated wages and there was no regularization of the employee. So also, in the proceedings dated 28.10.2000 of the Deputy General Manager of the Bank, referring to the petitioner only mentioned the necessity of the casual labour including the petitioner and requires examination of the proposal for absorption of such casual labour on consolidated wages and the said proceedings will not confer any right to the petitioner to seek absorption into the regular service as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi , [2006 (4) SCC 1] Petitioner gave application on 07.02.2003, for appointment for the post of sweeper-cum-water boy/women-cum-lunch room attendant on consolidated wages. She was called for interview on 31.07.2003 vide letter