D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.328/2008 Mahendra Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Judgment :: March 05, 2008. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. S.R. Surana for the appellants. *** Heard learned counsel for the appellants. This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.02.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition no.797/2007 whereby and whereunder the writ application was dismissed in limine. Grievances of the appellants are that since persons similarly situated to them are being re-employed by the respondent-Bank, their representations should have also been considered and they could have also been re-employed as the financial condition of the bank had improved. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that it would be manifest from Annexures 4 and 9 to the writ application that some of the retrenched persons were re-employed as the financial condition of the bank had improved but the same treatment is not being meted out to the appellants who have also filed the representations for their re-employment. -2- The learned Single Judge of this Court having considered Annexure 4 to the writ application held that case of the writ petitioner-appellants was not discriminated inasmuch as one of the posts of Class IV was filled up by way of compassionate appointment whereas Class III Posts were filled up vide Annexures 9 and 10 and since the appellants were Class IV employees they cannot be equated with those persons. It is altogether a different question as to whether the respondent-Bank could have re-considered the matter of the appellants at par with others who were re-employed but this Court should not mandate the bank authorities to fill up the posts by accommodating particular persons. It is discretion of the employer to fill up or not to fill up the posts. It does not appear to be a glaring case of discrimination as referred to above, and therefore, learned Single Judge of this Court was fully justified in not granting the reliefs. Faced with these situations and for the reasons aforementioned, therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. However it would be left open to the appellants to pursue the matter internally for their re-engagement. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J. (NARAYAN ROY),CJ. Skant/-