THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 2089 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in not treating the petitioners as seniors to the respondents 5 to 26 herein, as illegal, and direct the respondent No.1 to promote the petitioners to the post of Officer Scale-I cadre by declaring that mere selectee status of the respondent No.5 to 26 does not make them seniors to the writ petitioners in as much as the writ petitioners were appointed in clerical cadre in their pre- amalgamated bank prior to the respondent Nos.5 to 26, and started physically working in the year 1985, by which time the status of the respondent Nos.5 to 26 is only that of mere selectees, without being given any appointment and assigned any duty. The case, in brief, is:- The writ petitioners were initially appointed to the post of Junior Clerk-cum-cashier in Sree Anantha Grameena Bank, Anantapur, in the year 1985. Later, Sree Anantha Grameena Bank was amalgamated with Rayalaseema Grameena Bank and Pinakani Grameena Bank w.e.f 01.06.2006 and the said banks, after amalgamation into a single bank, is now known as Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, with its headquarters at Kadapa. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they are seniors to respondent Nos.5 to 26, their seniority has been overlooked and respondent Nos.5 to 26 were promoted as Officer Scale I Cadre in the 1st respondent. The petitioners submitted a representation dated 02.01.2010, but no action was taken by the 1st respondent. Hence, this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that respondent Nos.5 to 26 are juniors to that of the petitioners since they are appointed subsequent to the appointment of the petitioners, and that the petitioners made a representation dated 02.01.2010 to the 1st respondent, but no action has been taken on the said representation. The counsel further submits that because of the changed circumstances, certain aspects are to be brought to the notice of the authorities which are not mentioned in the earlier representation, and hence, he may be permitted to make a fresh representation. Normally, an affected party is to be served, prior to passing of any order. In the present case, respondent Nos.5 to 26 are party respondents who have not been served. Further, the petitioners sought to make a fresh representation. Hence, without going into merits of the case, and further, keeping in view that the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his relief to a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the representation dated 02.01.2010, this writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to make a fresh representation within a period of two weeks, and in which case, the 1st respondent is directed to consider the representation dated 02.01.2010 along with subsequent representation, in accordance with law. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH 29th December, 2011 KSM