IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 24778 of 1999 Between: 1. N.Naganna, S/o. N.Rathnamaiah, H.No.4/20-101, Harijanwada, Peddapadu Village, Kullur Mandal, Kurnool. 2. V.Sreenivasulu, S/o. V.Rangaiah. H.No.47/152-A, Budhavarpet, Kurnool District. 3. K.Hussainaiah, S/o. Savaranna. R/o. Pardampadu Village, Kurnool Mandal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Vijaya Bank, Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, M.G.Road, Bangalore. 2 The General Manager (P&S), Vijaya Bank, M.G.Road, Bangalore. 3 The Dy.General Manager, Vijaya Bank. Zonal Office, Babukhan Estate, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, direction or order, more especially a Writ in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents in empanelling only general category candidates and not empanelling the Petitioners herein who belong to the SC Category is illegal, arbitrary and vilative of Art.14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and issue such other further order or orders as may deem fit. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.PANDURANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MRS.P.BALA RANI The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in empanelling only general category candidates and not empanelling the petitioners herein who belong to the S.C. category, as illegal and arbitrary. According to the averments made in the affidavit, ﬁled in support of the petition, the case of the petitioners is that they belong to the Schedule Caste Community and they have been appointed as Sub staﬀ in the respondent’s bank at Kurnool on temporary basis and have worked for different periods. Circular No.30 of 1993 dated 27-03-1993 was issued by the respondent-bank with regard to the appointment of Sub staﬀ on temporary basis mentioning that whenever temporary vacancies arise at branches/oﬃces, only the empanelled candidates listed for regular absorption in the bank shall be engaged in such temporary vacancies at the nearest branch oﬃce depending upon their place of residence. There are codified guidelines, in the matter of appointment of Sub staﬀ on temporary basis and regularization, that whenever the vacancies arise, the persons who have been appointed on temporary basis have to be included in the list, who are called empanelled candidates. It is only from this list that the appointments are to be made and no employee should be engaged for a period exceeding 30 days at a stretch and 75 days in a year. It is submitted that settlements were arrived at between the Management of the bank and the Workers’ Union on 19-08- 1988 and 06-08-1991 with regard to the age, qualiﬁcation and the process of appointment etc. While so, the respondent had prepared a state wise rank list and insofar as the state of A.P. is concerned there are 52 candidates belonging to the general category and one physically handicapped. In so far as the recruitment is concerned the respondent has to necessarily follow the rule of reservation for SCs and STs. But the rule of reservation is not implemented in empanelling the candidates. On behalf of the respondents, inter alia, denying the averments made in the aﬃdavit, ﬁled in support of the petition, counter has been ﬁled stating that the respondent bank has issued guidelines from time to time in relation to regular appointment of Sub staﬀ. The petitioners were engaged as temporary peons at Kurnool branch for short periods during the years 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999. Since these petitioners were temporarily engaged for a speciﬁc periods and on the expiry of the said period their engagement came to an end and as such, the petitioners cannot claim, as a matter of right, for absorption in the regular service of the bank. The codiﬁed Circular No.30 of 1993 pertaining to the engagement of temporary peons in the bank indicate that only such of the persons from out of the panel which was already prepared during the year 1990 be considered. Thus, the procedure laid down for ﬁlling up of temporary vacancies of peons in the terms and conditions contained in circular No.166/88 dated 19-08-1988 are not at all applicable to these petitioners whose names were not incorporated in the panel. The duration as stipulated in Circular No.30 of 1993 for engaging temporary peons is applicable to the candidates who are sponsored by employment exchange for ﬁlling up of temporary vacancies. Since none of the circulars i.e. No.166 of 1988 and 30 of 1993 are applicable to these petitioners, they cannot derive any benefit from out of these circulars. Eventually, they submitted that the empanelment made in respect of the candidates, who were engaged during the period from 01-01- 1983 to 30-06-1988, as a one time measure and the same cannot be made applicable to these petitioners and hence these petitioners cannot seek absorption, as a matter of right. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material on record. The main grievance of the petitioners is that though they belong to the Schedule Caste Community and have been working for more than the required period as contained in the guidelines, none of the SC/ST candidates have been called for interview whereas there are 52 general category candidates and one physically handicapped candidate have been empanelled. There is no dispute with regard to the following rule of reservation. The fact is that the Circular No.166 of 1988 issued by the bank itself contemplates in clause (d) that the appointment of eligible temporary employees from the panel in regular service of the Bank as peons is subject to the guidelines regarding reservation of vacancy for SC/ST, ex- servicemen, physically handicapped. The case of the petitioners is that though they have worked for more than required period their names have not been empanelled. They are eligible for employment in the existing vacancies against the quota mentioned for the empanelling candidates. No reasons have been assigned as to why the respondent bank had not prepared the list of temporary staff, who have worked in the capacity of Sub staﬀ. Admittedly the petitioners have worked in the respondent bank in the different scales from 1996 to 1999. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel, the respondent bank is directed to consider the case of the petitioners taking into account the relevant circulars and guidelines issued from time to time against the existing vacancies and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 03-07-2008 LSK