HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 3220 OF 2005 . DATED 11th November, 2011 BETWEEN P. Vani …Petitioner And General Manager, The Krishna District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Machilipatnam, Krishna District and anr. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 3220 of 2005 ORDER: The petitioner was charge sheeted on 24.11.2004 on the ground that while working as a Manager, at S.N.Puram Branch of the first respondent-Krishna District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, she committed several financial irregularities. Basing on the same, the first respondent-Bank issued impugned proceedings dated 8.2.2005 cancelling the in-charge arrangement entrusted to the petitioner as an Assistant General Manager on ad-hoc basis in the interest of discipline in the Bank and posting as a Manager of the Patmata Branch. The grievance of the petitioner is that before issuing the impugned proceedings, she was not afforded an opportunity of being head and therefore condemned unheard and principles of natural justice have been violated. The affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition reveals that as on the date of filing of the Writ Petition, the petitioner was continuing in the post of Assistant General Manager at Regional Office, Vijayawada. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that vide proceedings dated 14.6.2004, the petitioner was kept in-charge of the post of Assistant General Manager (Category-II Post) on ad-hoc basis untill further orders and in addition to the said post, she was also discharging her normal duties as a Branch Manager of S.N. Puram branch upto 11.8.2004. It is stated that after noticing the financial irregularities, the first respondent-bank felt it desirable to cancel the in- charge arrangement given to the petitioner and accordingly vide proceedings dated 8.2.2005 the same was cancelled. It is further stated that on account of financial irregularities committed by the petitioner, the first responden-bank issued charge memo dated 24.11.2004, to which, the petitioner had submitted her explanation on 14.12.2005 denying the charges. The Enquiry Officer appointed thereto submitted his report on 28.2.2005 stating that the charges levelled against the petitioner were found to be true. Heard both sides. Perused the case file. Admittedly, the petitioner was kept in- charge of the post of Assistant General Manager on ad-hoc basis in the Regional Office of the first respondent-Bank. As such, the same can be cancelled at any time since the said arrangement is purely a temporary and ad-hoc in nature and will not confer any right or lien or claim for preferential treatment in the matter of promotion in the normal course. The same was mentioned in the order dated 14.6.2004. It is a well settled law that a writ of mandamus can be issued only when there exists a legal right in the Writ Petitioner and corresponding legal obligation on the State. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engaged as a contractual or casual worker and such engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognised by the relevant rules or procedure, he/she is aware of the consequences of such appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being sought to be confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection. Therefore, the doctrine of legitimate expectation has no application to the facts of the case on hand. Furthermore, on account of the financial irregularities stated to have been committed by the petitioner, a charge memo dated 24.11.2004 was issued to her and after considering and being not satisfied by her explanation submitted to the said charge memo, an enquiry was duly conducted. As such, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard and that the principles of natural justice have been violated. No other grounds are urged before me. For the foregoing discussion, I do not see any merit in the Writ Petition, which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 11th November, 2011. Msnro