THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION N0.19362 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Village Electricity Worker in the Cooperative Electricity Supply Society Limited, Siricilla, 1st respondent herein, for the past several years. After repeated demands being made by the Associations, the 1st respondent approached the Commissioner of Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, 2nd respondent herein for according sanction to create the posts of Assistant Helpers in a newly constituted cadre. Such permission was accorded on 19.11.2010. The society in turn passed a resolution on 01.06.2011 to the effect that 170 temporary village electricity workers and six contract helpers be appointed against the newly sanctioned posts. It is stated that through proceedings dated 10.06.2011, the 1st respondent appointed as many as 126 village electricity workers as Assistant Helpers. The grievance of the petitioner is that himself and certain others are not issued orders of appointment, on the ground that they figured as accused in C.C.No.722 of 2007 pending in the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sircilla. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the criminal case itself was instituted on the basis of a frivolous complaint submitted by one of the Directors and the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of appointment. He contends that the petitioner struggled for about more than two decades with a meager salary, with a fond hope of being appointed on regular basis, and that he is denied such a benefit on the ground that he is figuring as accused. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent on the other hand submits that once the petitioner is figuring as an accused and his name was shown in the F.I.R., the 1st respondent cannot be expected to appoint him ignoring such involvement. It is no doubt true that a case is pending for the past four years and it is on the basis of a complaint filed by one of the Directors. The fact however remains that the name of the petitioner figured in the F.I.R. as well as the charge sheet. The 1st respondent cannot ignore such involvement. The interests of the petitioner can be protected by directing the disposal of the case itself at the earliest. It is just un-understandable as to why a case of such a nature is pending for the past four years. The career of several persons is involved. The trial Court cannot keep the matter pending any longer. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the case of the petitioner shall be considered depending upon the outcome of C.C.No.722 of 2007. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sircilla shall take up the case on day-to-day basis and dispose of the same as early as possible and not later than three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Registry shall mark a copy of this order to the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Siricilla. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 04.08.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION N0. 19362 of 2011 Date: 04.08.2011 JSU