IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 15737 of 1999 Between: Suvvada Tirupathi, S/o Seetham Naidu, Hindu, R/o.50-90-23/2, , Shantipuram, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State Bank of Hyderabad Rep.by its Managing Director, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad-1. 2 The Dy.General Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Zonal Office, Seethampet, Visakhapatnam. R2 dismissed for default as per Court order dt.13.3.2003 3 Sri A.S.K. Bhaghavanlu, Asst.General Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad-1. 4 Sri C.V. Prasad Sastry, Administrative Secretary, State Bank of Hyderabad, Zonal Office, Visakhapatnam-16. 5 Regional Employment Officer, District Employment Exchange, Oppsite to Pallavi nursing home, Maharanipet, Visakhapatnam-2. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus in declaring that the action of the respondents in filling up the vacancies of Sweepers/peons in State Bank of Hyderabad, Visakhapatnam Zone is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art 14 of the Constitution and all principles of natural justice and direct the respondents 1 to 4 to appoint the peitioner to one such post in State Bank of Hyderabad, Visakhapatnam Zone and to pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.RAJAGOPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VEENA} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P.No.15737 of 1999 ORDER: The petitioner in this writ petition seeks a declaration that the action of the 1st respondent-State Bank of Hyderabad and its officers in filling up the vacancies of Sweepers/Peons, in its branch at Visakhapatnam zone is illegal and seeks a consequential direction to appoint him to one such post in its Visakhapatnam branch. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner stated that he had studied up to 10th class and had registered with the Regional Employment Officer, District Employment Exchange, Visakhapatnam, the 5th respondent, on 12-03-1996. It is his case that several posts in the respondent-bank were filled up without following legal requirements. Eligible candidates were not called for from the employment exchange and there was a gross violation of the procedure prescribed by the Bank, including the Rule of Reservation. The petitioner alleged that the officers of the respondent-bank resorted to recruiting candidates in whom they were interested on daily wages basis in the first instance, continuing them for some time, and thereafter appointing them on a permanent basis. The petitioner gave the instances of five such employees who were appointed by violating the prescribed procedure. However, these persons were not made parties to the writ petition. The petitioner further stated that these irregularities were brought to the notice of the respondent-bank and its officers, but no steps were taken to rectify the irregular appointments. Accordingly, the petitioner sought a declaration from this Court that the action of the respondent-bank and its officers in filling up the vacancies of Sweepers/Peons in its Branch at Visakhapatnam zone was illegal and a consequential direction to appoint him to one such post. 3. In its counter, the respondent-bank, deposing through the Deputy General Manager (Personnel), Head Office, State Bank of Hyderabad, stated that there was no violation of the prescribed procedure in making appointments in the bank’s branch at Visakhapatnam zone as alleged. It was stated that the normal course for the respondent-bank would be to notify the vacancies to the local employment exchange, which would then sponsor candidates, from amongst whom selections would be made. However, with regard to vacancies that arose for small and temporary periods, being less than three months, the respondent-bank found it impracticable to seek sponsorship from the employment exchange and in such situations, nominated temporary appointees to work for the required period. It was further stated that basing on the good conduct of such temporarily appointed staff, they were reappointed on a casual basis whenever a temporary requirement arose and on few occasions, such temporary employees were regularized in service taking into consideration their service as such for considerable time. The respondent-bank stated that the instances of the five persons mentioned by the petitioner fall within this category and details there of were furnished showing that the said five appointees had worked in the respondent-bank from 1992, 1992, 1993, 1992 and 1991 respectively. It was further stated that the petitioner is not qualified for appointment to any of the posts of subordinate staff in the respondent-bank. It was stated that the petitioner never made any representation with regard to the allegations made by him in this writ petition and he was never sponsored by the employment exchange at any point of time. Upon enquiry with the employment exchange, the respondent bank further found that the registration of the petitioner with the employment exchange had lapsed. Stating so, the respondent bank prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. In the light of the facts emerging from the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-bank, which have not been refuted by way of a reply affidavit, it is clear that the petitioner’s registration with the employment exchange had lapsed and he failed to make any representation with regard to the irregularities alleged by him in this writ petition at any earlier point of time. 5. With regard to the so-called illegal appointments which have been cited by him, the respondent-bank has clarified that the regularization of the five appointees was undertaken in the light of the lengthy service rendered by them in temporary posts. No fault can be found with the respondent-bank in this regard. Further, the counter affidavit also demonstrates that the petitioner was ineligible to be considered for any post in the sub-staff in the respondent-bank. It has also to be noticed that the petitioner failed to make any of the so- called illegal appointees parties to this writ petition. In the absence of such affected parties, the petitioner cannot seek a declaration from this Court that their appointments are illegal. The petitioner has not demonstrated as to how he is entitled to be considered for appointment to any post in the sub-staff in the respondent-bank. In such view of the matter, the petitioner miserably failed to make out a case warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The writ petition is therefore devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________________ 17th July 2009 KVR