THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.1118 of 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus (i) to declare the action of the respondents in regularizing the services of the petitioner as Junior Staff Assistant vide proceedings dated 24.09.1997 instead of Staff Assistant as illegal and arbitrary; (ii) to declare the action of the respondents in regularizing the services of the petitioner with effect from 24.09.1997 instead of regularizing the services of the petitioner with effect from the date of his initial appointment as Cherk/Staff Assistant in the Agricultural Cooperative Staff Training Institute (for short ‘ACSTI’) as illegal and arbitrary; and (iii) consequently to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as Staff Assistant instead of Junior Staff Assistant with retrospective effect i.e., from the date of initial appointment of the petitioner as Clerk/Staff Assistant in ACSTI. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk (Staff Assistant) in 1986 in ACSTI, which was funded by the Central Government. However, with effect from 01.07.1992, ACSTI institute was taken over by the State Government - the first respondent. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were regularized in the cadre of Junior Staff Assistant with effect from 24.09.1997. According to the petitioner, the post of Staff Assistant is equivalent to Junior Assistant or Clerk, whereas the post of Junior Staff Assistant is equivalent to Attender and therefore, his grievance is that he is entitled to be treated as Staff Assistant and his services need to be regularized in the said cadre from the date when ACSTI was taken over i.e., 01.07.1992 and not as Junior Staff Assistant. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that though the petitioner had put in more than ten years of service, he was absorbed by the first respondent against a post, which is equivalent to Attender and not as Staff Assistant, which is equivalent to Clerk, and therefore, the said act of the first respondent is illegal and arbitrary. Though no counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents strenuously contended that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis in ACSTI which was taken over by the first respondent with effect from 01.07.1992 and therefore, he has no right whatsoever to claim regularization of his services in the cadre of Staff Assistant or Junior Staff Assistant with effect from 01.07.1992 or prior to that nor he is entitled to be appointed as a Staff Assistant. The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents have considered the case of the petitioner and he was absorbed as a Staff Assistant in view of the resolution dated 07.08.2009 passed by the board of management of the bank and therefore, nothing survives in the writ petition for adjudication. Whereas the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the respondents have not filed counter or relevant document showing absorption of the petitioner and therefore, the writ petition may be disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. Though it is true that no counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents, but the learned counsel for the respondents produced before the Court a copy of Memorandum dated 30.12.2009, a reading of which shows that as per resolution dated 07.08.2009, the board of management of the bank approved the proposal for the incorporation of new service regulation No.66 and also amendment to the service regulation No.10 of the bank relating to absorption of Junior Staff Assistants into the cadre of Staff Assistants in the bank. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for absorption as Staff Assistant with effect from 01.07.1992 or at least from 1997 onwards, if not prior to that, on par with the other similarly situated employees who were already absorbed and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (C.V. RAMULU, J) 17th February, 2011 GHN