IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2010 / 20TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24969 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.A.DHANYA, D/O.N.K.MADHUSUDANAN, AGED 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT NADUVATHU PARAMBIL HOUSE, POOTHURAKKAL P.O., CHERPU, THRISSUR - 680 561. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CHAIRMAN, STATE BANK OF INDIA, STATE BANK BHAVAN, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI. 2. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, S.S.KOVIL ROAD, THAMBANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MR.P.V.SURENDRANATH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2010, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO.25036/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) Nos.24969 (U) & 25036 (D) of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners submit that they were engaged by the respondent Bank on contract basis as Officers - Marketing and Recovery - Farm Sector, which was later redesignated as Officer Marketing and Recovery (Rural). According to the petitioners, the Bank is going to regularise such contract appointees and therefore, their services also should be regularised. 2. However, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank points out that the Scheme contemplates regularisation of only those who are in service as on 14/07/2010. According to him, the petitioners have resigned from the services of the Bank long before that date, and therefore, the Scheme does not apply to the petitioners. Since the facts are as stated by the learned Standing Counsel for the Bank, the petitioners cannot claim coverage of the Scheme for regularisation. If that be so, this Court will not be justified in directing consideration of their claims made in the representations. The writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg