JUDGMENT
Mukundakam Sharma, J.
1. This court by judgment and order dated September 7, 2001 disposed of the writ petition filed by the petitioner with certain observations and directions as set out in the said judgment. The said writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the respondent No.1 not to terminate the services of the petitioner and also to regularise the services of the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed as a casual labour by the respondent No.1 some time in August 1998 and he worked for about 240 days in the said establishment of the respondent No.1. Consequently, the aforesaid writ petition was filed seeking for a direction to regularise the services of the petitioner.
2. The respondent bank contested the writ petition by contending that the petitioner did not work for 240 days. It was further pointed out that the petitioner was given work on casual basis for shifting of furniture, arranging water, etc. It was stated that since there was no full time work at the extension counter necessitating employment of a regular person at the said counter, the said work, which itself was of casual nature, was got done by engaging the petitioner on casual basis. The writ petition was heard. This court after scrutiny and careful perusal of the records held that since the very fact as to whether or not the petitioner had worked for 240 days is disputed by the respondents, the said issue itself gave rise to a disputed question of act. It was further held that since the petitioner was not appointed in regular course and his appointment was dehors the rules of recruitment of the bank, therefore, no declaration as sought for by the petitioner could be issued, nor any direction could be given to the respondents directing them to regularise the services of the petitioner. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was disposed of, but with the observations that if there be any vacancy in the respondent bank and for filling up of the same if an advertisement is issued, it would be open for the petitioner to submit his application which as and when submitted shall be considered by the respondents in accordance with law. It was also observed that if in case the respondent o.1 is in need of service of a casual employee at any point of time, the case of the petitioner could and should also be considered provided the petitioner submits an application in that regard.
3. After the disposal of the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court which was registered as L.P.A. No. 686/2001. However, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the aforesaid appeal on the ground that the petitioner wanted to move the Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. However, no liberty was sought for by the petitioner at the time of the aforesaid withdrawal of the appeal for filing a fresh appeal.
4. Be that as it may, subsequently the petitioner filed an application in this court seek for clarification of the order dated September 7, 2001 which was registered as C.M. No. 8132/2002. However, the said application was withdrawn by the petitioner after some arguments with the liberty to file a fresh application specifying proper reliefs which the petitioner desired to seek for. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner filed a fresh application which was registered as C.M. No. 4240/2004 on which notice was issued which was served and a reply thereto was also filed. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and now I propose to dispose of the said application by this judgment and order.
5. So far the writ petition is concerned, it was held by this court in the said writ petition that the very question as to whether or not the petitioner had worked for 240 days is a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided and cannot form the subject-matter of a writ petition. It was also held that since the said appointment given to the petitioner was dehors the rules of recruitment of the bank there cannot be any direction by this Court for regularising the services of the petitioner. The petitioner was given an opportunity to submit an appropriate application for future vacancies, if any, in the bank. So far the observation with regard to his engagement on casual basis is concerned, it is now pointed out by the bank that no casual worker ad been taken by the bank so far. It is also pointed out in the reply filed that there was no vacancy in the bank nor any person had been recruited. It is also pointed out that the petitioner never submitted any application before the respondent bank
Counsel for the respondents, however, has stated during the course of his submissions that as and when there is any scope for giving an engagement on casual basis in the extension counter of the bank, an advertisement shall be placed in the notice board calling for applications as against which the petitioner could submit his application, and in that event his case would be considered in accordance with law and in accordance with the observations of this Court. I find the aforesaid statement of the counsel for the respondents very fair and reasonable.
6. This application stands, accordingly, disposed of accepting the aforesaid statement of the counsel appearing for the respondents that if and when there is any scope for giving an engagement on casual basis in the extension counter of the bank, an advertisement thereof shall be placed in the general notice board and, if the petitioner submits his application as against such an advertisement, his case shall be considered in accordance with law and in terms of the observations given by this Court while disposing of the writ petition.