IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 4749 of 2006 Between: Nijamala Narasimhulu, s/o Penchalaiah, Pinakini Grameena Bank, Atmakur Branch, Nellore District, Resident of Mahimalauru, Atmakur Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Pinakini Grameena Bank, Nellore, Nellore District represented by its General Manager. 2 The Selection Committee, Pinakini Grameena Bank, Nellore, Nellore District, represented by the Chairman, Pinakini Grameena Bank, Nellore. 3 Mr.Venu Kumar, Pinakini Grameena Bank, Marripadu Branch, Marripadu, Nellore District. 4 Mr.M.Babu, Pinakini Grameena Bank, Singarayakonda Branch, Singarayakonda, Prakasham District. 5 Mr.Lakshmi N.Rao, Pinakini Grameena Bank, Vakadu Branch, Vakadu, Nellore District. .....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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus- i) declaring that the petitioner's non-selection and appointment as against the sanctioned vacancy in the post of Messenger-cum-Sweeper pursuant to the interviews held on 20th and 21st February, 2006 and selecting and appointing the unofficial respondents 3 to 5 and others, as Messenger- cum-Sweeper, who have scored less marks in the empanelment test, 2004 and who have not even worked as single day, as part time Sweepers-cum-Messengers, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional apart from being violative of principles of natural justice, and against the settled principles of law; and consequently ii) set aside the selection and appointments of the unofficial respondents 3 to 5 and others, vide Circular No.031/PSD/05/2006, dated 27-2-2006 by directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Messenger-Cum-Sweeper in the sanctioned vacancy w.e.f. 27-2-2006, by giving all service benefits including pay and allowances; and iii) pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court deems fit, proper and appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.NANDIGAM KRISHNA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MRSAKAMOHAN RAO The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner challenges the selection and appointment made by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to fill 29 vacancies of Driver-cum-Messenger in respondent No.1-Bank, vide proceedings, dated 27.02.2006. The petitioner claims to have been engaged as part- time Sweeper-cum-Messenger in respondent No.1-Bank from the year 2000 onwards. In the year 2004, respondent No.1 initiated steps for selection and empanelment of 75 candidates as temporary part-time Sweeper-cum-Messenger for the branches in the districts of Nellore (45) and Prakasam (30). The Employment Exchanges concerned were addressed letters to sponsor 180 and 120 candidates respectively. The petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.1846 of 2003 with a prayer to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider his case. On the basis of the directions issued in the writ petition, the case of the petitioner was also considered. The list of 75 candidates was accordingly prepared, after conducting interviews from 3rd to 6th March, 2004. The petitioner states that he was placed at Serial No.12 in the list. In the year 2006, respondent No.1 intended to fill 29 posts of Sweeper-cum-Messenger, on regular basis. It sought permission of the sponsoring Bank to fill these posts with candidates occurring in the panel of 75 candidates prepared in the year 2004. Permission was accorded and thereafter, intimations were given to the empanelled candidates, including the petitioner. Interviews were conducted on 20th and 21st February, 2006. Through the impugned proceedings, a list of 29 selected candidates is displayed. The grievance of the petitioner is that though respondent Nos. 3 to 5, who figured much below him were selected and appointed, he was denied the appointment. He contends that once the panel of 75 candidates was prepared after the process of selection, there was no basis for altering the positions therein, for making regular appointments. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a detailed counter-affidavit admitting the fact that a panel of 75 candidates was prepared after conducting interview of the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges, and others, as directed by this Court. It is also admitted that steps were initiated for filling 29 posts on regular basis and that the sponsoring Bank had accorded permission for restricting the consideration to 75 candidates who have been empanelled in the year 2004. The respondents plead that a selection committee was constituted for examining the ability and efficiency of the candidates within the panel of 75 and on the basis of performance of the candidates, the selection was made. It is stated that the petitioner did not derive any right on account of his being included in the list of 75 candidates, which is totally for a different and distinct purpose. Sri S.Prasad Babu, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the panel of 75 candidates was prepared in the year 2004, after following the procedure prescribed for direct recruitment, namely inviting list of eligible candidates from Employment Exchanges, conducting interview through the selection committee and assigning ranks, on the basis of the performance. He submits that when the consideration for regular appointment was restricted to the previous list of 75 candidates, the places mentioned therein ought not to have been meddled with. Sri K.Srinivasa Murthy, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, on the other hand, submits that the purpose of preparing the panel of 75 candidates was totally different and limited; and simply because the candidates empanelled therein alone were considered for regular appointment, it cannot be said that the ranking assigned in that list must be followed without further assessment. A further contention is advanced to the effect that having participated in the selection, the petitioner cannot raise an objection at a later point of time. He contends that the procedure prescribed for the selection of the candidates has strictly been followed and no interference is warranted. Though respondent Nos.3 and 5 were served with notice, they have not chosen to enter appearance. The selection process undertaken by respondent No.1 on two occasions; i.e. in the years 2004 and 2006 is typical and extraordinary, in several respects. The process initiated in the year 2004 was for the purpose of empanelling 75 candidates for being assigned the duties of part-time Sweepers-cum-Attenders. Obviously with a view to ensure transparency and efficiency, letters were addressed to the Employment Exchanges to sponsor eligible candidates in the ratio of 1:4. For the 45 such vacancies in Nellore District, a list of 180 candidates was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and for 30 vacancies in Prakasam, 120 candidates were sponsored. In addition to that, the candidates who were directed to be considered through the orders of this Court were also taken into account. Even from the counter-affidavit, it is evident that the candidates so sponsored and directed were interviewed by a selection committee comprising of Genera Manager, Senior Manager P.S.D., and one Officer representing S.C. and S.T. community. Though it was not a regular appointment, the committee arranged names of the selected candidates on the basis of their performance in the interview. In para 12 of the counter-affidavit, this fact is clearly mentioned. In the year 2006, steps were initiated to fill 29 vacancies of Sweeper-cum-Messenger cadre on regular basis. Respondent No.1, which thought it fit to get a list of candidates from the Employment Exchanges at 1:4 even for preparation of a panel for temporary, part-time Sweepers-cum-Messengers, has made a proposal that the regular appointments be made from the existing list of 75 candidates. In other words, it was convinced that the list of 75 candidates has already been prepared by undertaking the process of selection. The sponsoring Bank accorded permission, for such a procedure. Once the consideration for filling up of 29 vacancies is restricted to the list of 75 candidates selected in the year 2004, may be for a different purpose, subjecting these 75 persons once again to a second round of selection process, does not accord with any settled principle of law or any prescribed rule. The counter-affidavit which runts into 11 printed pages does not make any mention of the provision under which such a procedure was adopted. In the normal course, applications ought to have been invited from the eligible candidates, apart from inviting lists from Employment Exchanges for making appointments against these 29 vacancies. When it was confined to the list of a selected candidates of 75, constituting an another selection committee comprising of Chairman of the Bank, Nominee Director of NABARD and two senior most Officers of the Bank was, for all practical purposes, superfluous. At any rate, the examination by the selection committee ought to have been confined to the verification of the genuinity of the claims of the persons already included in the panel. The selection committee could have altered the order of merit maintained in the list of 75 candidates. Further, it is not as if any benchmark was stipulated by the selection committee and that the petitioner was eliminated on account of his not being able to cross the benchmark. Viewed from any angle, the procedure adopted by respondent Nos.1 and 2 cannot be sustained in law. The alternative before this Court is either to set aside all these selections or to protect the right of the petitioner on the basis of his being empanelled at Serial No.12 in the list of selected candidates, of the year 2004. The second course appears to be reasonable and it would avoid complications in the matter. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and respondent No.1 is directed to issue necessary orders, duly respecting the place of the petitioner in the list of 75 candidates prepared in the year 2004. In case the petitioner can be accommodated against an existing vacancy, there would not be a necessity to terminate or retrench respondent No.5. However, if it becomes inevitable, respondent No.1 shall replace respondent No.5 with the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 09.07.2008. Note: L.R. copy to be marked. kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS}