IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 7454 of 2010 Date of decision: 23.02.2011 Savita Rani .....Petitioner VERSUS The State Bank of Patiala and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner was employed by the respondent-Bank on 20.10.2000. The petitioner is a lady and middle class passed. She claims to have done some good work for which she has received appreciation also. She has now approached this Court alleging that she was assured to be regularized as Sweeper. Now, requisition has been sent to the employment exchange under the provisions of Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959. The petitioner, accordingly, says that her case be considered for appointment instead of filling up the vacancy by calling requisition from the employment exchange. Prima facie, I do not find any justification to interfere in the action taken by the Bank to make an appointment by adopting a due and proper procedure. It is noticed that the petitioner has continued to work with the Bank for considerable period. She atleast Civil Writ Petition No. 7454 of 2010 -2- would be entitled to be considered for appointment even if her name is not registered in the employment exchange. The respondent-Bank may consider the case of the petitioner alongwith others for appointment and pass any appropriate order on merit. The petitioner, if feels aggrieved against any order, may have her remedy in accordance with law. The Respondent-Bank will maintain status quo till such time of regular hand is appointed. The present writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. February 23, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE