IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 15905 of 2008 Between: A.V.Satyanarayana Rao S/o. Venkateswara Rao The District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Srikakulam, Srikakulam District, Rep. by its President/ Chairman. 2 The District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Srikakulam, Srikakulam District, Rep. by its General Manager. .....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 to declare the action of the 1st respondent in not disposing of the appeal dated 30.1.2007 and the consequential representation dated 10.04.2008 re-ﬁxation of the ﬁnal seniority list of the Grade -III Managers in the respondent bank as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Principles of natural justice and also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent bank to dispose of the appeal dated 30.10.2007 and the consequential representation dated 10.04.2008 re-ﬁxing the ﬁnal seniority list of Grade-III Managers. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.L.V.S.NAGARAJU Counsel for the Respondents: MR.KOKA RAGHAVA RAO The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner was initially appointed as a Manager, Grade-III on 17.03.1999 by the ﬁrst respondent-Bank under BC ’A’ category. A provisional list of Managers of that category was published on 27.02.2007 inviting objections. In the ﬁnal seniority list published on 23.03.2007, the petitioner was shown at Serial No.8. The petitioner submitted an application to the ﬁrst respondent-Bank under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to furnish the information as to the marks obtained by himself and other candidates, selected in the year 1999. The information was furnished to the petitioner by the second respondent on 13.06.2007. The petitioner states that according to the information furnished by the second respondent, he ought to have been selected against an O.C. vacancy and that in turn, would have its own eﬀect on the place of seniority in the post of Branch Manager, Grade-III. The petitioner made a representation/appeal, dated 30.10.2007, with necessary prayer. His grievance is that no action has been taken thereon by the ﬁrst respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. A ﬁnal seniority list was published on 23.03.2007 showing the petitioner at Serial No.8. The petitioner states that according to the information furnished by the second respondent, he is entitled to be shown against a vacancy earmarked for O.C. category and at a higher place. The question as to whether the claim of the petitioner deserves to be accepted, needs to be considered by the ﬁrst respondent. In case, any change in the place of the petitioner in the seniority list is warranted, the aﬀected candidates are to be issued notices. Nearly nine months have elapsed ever since the petitioner had submitted his representation/appeal. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the ﬁrst respondent to take necessary action on the representation/appeal, dated 30.10.2007, submitted by the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, duly issuing notices to the aﬀected parties, if any. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:04.08.2008 kdl