IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 8266 of 1998 Between: Mohd. Sarkar S/o Md. Yusuf Branch Office, Syndicate Bank, Tenali, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Secretary to Government, Ministry of Economic Affairs (Banking Division), Government of India, New Delhi. 2 The Deputy General Manager, Personnel Department, Workmen Wing, Zonal Office, Syndicate Bank, Hyderabad. 3 The Divisional Manager, Syndicate Bank, Personnel Section, Divisional Office, Vijayawada. 4 The Branch-Manager, Syndicate Tenali, Guntur 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 a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in issuing proceedings dt: 23-2-1998 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the reservation provided by the instructions of the Ministry of Economic affairs (Banking Division) i.e. 1st Respondent herein and consequently set-aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri V. Mallik Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Sri A. Rajashekar Reddy (Asst. Solicitor General) The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition has been instituted seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent-Syndicate Bank in issuing proceedings dated 23.02.1998 as illegal. The case of the petitioner is that he has been engaged as an Attender by the respondent-bank, that he is being intermittently engaged and that he has also simultaneously been relieved after putting in certain man days of work. The grievance, in essence, of the petitioner is that in spite of perennially utilizing the services of the Attenders on temporary basis, the respondent-bank, which answers the description of the State, is not taking any measures for regularizing the service of the writ petitioner. The Assistant General Manager of the respondent-bank has filed a detailed counter-affidavit in the matter. He has pointed out that the bank has entered into a settlement on 09.04.1996 and that there were certain directions issued as to how to go about regularizing the services of the temporarily engaged Attenders, in Writ Appeal No. 1444 of 1997. It is stated that two different sets of panels are prepared for each District, one of which deals with those who have put in 240 man days, while the other panel comprises, those who have put in 90 man days. It is, therefore, appropriate to set out the pleading of the bank, in this regard, which is to the following effect: “ It is stated that basing on the settlement dated 09.04.1996, District wise Panels were prepared and the petitioner is in Guntur District Panel. As per the panel prepared for Guntur District there is one candidate in 240 days panel and 7 candidates in 90 days panel and his overall seniority in the district is 7. it is further submitted that Sri Y. Chandra Rao at Sl.No. 1 in 240 days panel, his services were regularized on 15.11.2005, Sri U. Seetharama Murthy at Sl.No.1 in 90 days panel, did not turn up ion response to letter issued by the bank. Mr. M. Suresh in 90 days panel, his services were regularized on 09.08.206. Mr. E. Masthan Rao at Sl.No. 3 in 90 days panel, his services were regularized on 09.08.206. Sri K.S. Khajavali at Sl. No.4 in 90 days panel, his services were regularized on14.08.2006. The petitioner is placed at Sl.No. 6 in the panel and above him, the name of Md. Ghouse Samdhani is at Sl.No. 5 in the panel, who is waiting for his turn for regularization.” There is no material on record to contradict this factual situation. If, from out of the 90 days panel, four persons have already been regularized and the last of them, Sri K. S. Khajavali has been regularized on 14.08.2006, I have no reason to doubt that the respondent-bank is taking necessary steps and measures to regularize the services of those included in the panels as and when occasion arises. Since there is one more candidate by name, Md. Ghouse Samdhani standing at Sl.No. 5 in the panel above the name of the petitioner herein, the relief of regularization of the service of the petitioner cannot be straight away granted. I hope and trust that the respondent-bank will comply with the directions issued by this Court in Writ Appeal 1444 of 1997 as and when the vacancies do arise and regularize the services of the writ petitioner also. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of, but however, without costs. (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J) 29th February 2008 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JPK}