IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No :15063 of 1999 Between: Gummadi Brahmam, Messenger in Central Bank Ltd., Chebrolu Branch, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Guntur District Co-operative Central bank Ltd., Administrative Office, Lakshmipuram, Guntur, Guntur District rep by its General Manager and others. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No :15063 of 1999 ORDER: The petitioner herein is appointed as Peon-cum- Watchman in the 1st respondent Bank on daily wage basis in the year 1984. It is claimed that his services were regularized on 28-5-1984 whereas the services of the respondents 2 to 5 were regularized on 8-10-1984, 28-2-1985, 28-5-1984 and 8-10- 1982 respectively. It is stated that the 1st respondent Bank having proposed to fill up the existing vacancies in Category-V by recruiting candidates on selection basis, conducted interview for in-service candidates on 19-5-1999 and promoted the respondents 2 to 5 on 24-5-1999 as Staff Assistants under Category-V. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed contending that the respondents 2 to 5 who were much juniors to the petitioner and who acquired qualification after regularization of their services in the post of Peon-cum-Watchman, were not entitled to be appointed as Staff Assistants under Category-V. On behalf of the 1st respondent a counter affidavit has been filed stating that Cadre-V vacancies have to be filled up following the ratio of 9:1 i.e. out of ten vacancies, nine vacancies are to be filled from among the eligible Paid Secretaries and one post from among the in-service candidates i.e Messengers. Accordingly, four vacancies were earmarked for in-service candidates out of total 39 vacancies that were available in Category-V. The Messengers who possessed Degree and Junior Diploma in Co-operation (J.D.C) are only eligible to be promoted to the post of Cadre-V. The promotion is by way of selection only. The duly constituted Selection Committee interviewed the eligible in-service candidates in May 1999. As per the instructions issued, 50 marks were allotted for previous service, 20 marks for academic qualification and 30 marks for interview. The petitioner’s allegation that the respondents 2 to 5 were not qualified has been denied and it is stated that they were promoted pursuant to their selection by the duly constituted Selection Committee. Heard both parties. As could be seen, the post of Staff Assistant was a selection post and all the eligible in-service candidates were considered by the duly Selection Committee and the appointments were made strictly in accordance with the rules and regulations. It is also apparent that the petitioner was not selected whereas the respondents 2 to 5 were selected and appointed to the post of Staff Assistants. Hence, the contention that the respondents 2 to 5 being juniors to the petitioner were not qualified to the post of Cadre-V is without any substance. Accordingly, the writ petition which is devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. No costs. _______________ Justice G.Rohini Date:1.6.2010 mrb