IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 850 of 2011 Date of Decision: 11th April, 2011 Abhishek Sheel Dutt Petitioner Versus Punjab National Bank and another Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph,J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner: Mr.R.Kant, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) In terms of order dated 28.12.2010 (Annexure P-3) petitioner was selected as a Peon. He was asked to join duties on 31.1.2011 and submit his certificates of eligibility issued by the competent authority. His joining was accepted and vide letter dated 31.1.2011 he was posted at Branch Office Pragpur, District Kangra, H.P. However, vide order dated 23.2.2011 (Annexure P-5) his services were terminated with immediate effect with payment of one month’s salary in lieu of one month’s notice. Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 2. It could not be disputed at the Bar that petitioner was otherwise ineligible for consideration for selection to the post in question. He had exceeded the upper age limit of 24 years which could be relaxed only in cases of SC/ST candidates by 5 years. Petitioner was 26 years of age. It stands sufficiently explained by the respondents that even though petitioner belonged to General category but his name was wrongly sponsored by the Employment Exchange as a candidate belonging to Schedule Caste category. Not only did the Employment Exchange admit its mistake but also sent a letter of apology (Annexure RE). 3. The requirement of upper age limit, under the prevalent conditions of service could be relaxed only in cases of SC/ST/OBC candidates. Thus respondents rectified their mistake by issuing the order of termination. The respondents have taken action during the probation period by giving one month’s salary in lieu of notice period in accordance with the terms of the agreement dated 31.1.2011 entered into between the parties. It cannot be said that respondents have either acquiesced to or waived of the necessary conditions of service or that a legitimate right of expectation had emerged in favour of 3 petitioner. It could not be shown as to how any legally enforceable right of the petitioner stands violated by the respondents. 3. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. (Justice Kurian Jospeh) Chief Justice 11th April, 2011 (Justice Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.