THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7926 of 2001 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering her case for inclusion in the panel for the post of Sweeper though she is working from the year 1992, as arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to consider her case by including her name in the panel for the post of sweeper by appointing her as sweeper on regular basis in the existing vacancy in the office of the first respondent. Heard. It is the case of the petitioner that she approached the first respondent bank for consideration of her case for the post of sweeper/attender in the year 1990. As there was a regular employee working in the first respondent bank as sweeper, the case of the petitioner was not considered. When the said permanent employee went on long leave, during that period, the first respondent informed the petitioner to work in the leave vacancy on temporary basis. Accordingly, the petitioner worked for 41 days in the year 1992 as sweeper. Likewise, as and when the permanent employee went on leave, the petitioner used to work in the said post and she worked for 62 days in the year 1993, 108 days in 1994, and 90 days in the year 1995. From the year 1996 to 2001 also, the petitioner worked for a considerable period. She had worked for 88 days in 1996, 64 days in 1997, 22 days in 1998, 47 days in 1999, 49 days in 2000 and 53 days in 2001, as such, her case has to be considered. She also stated that breaks in her employment were artificially created to see that no obligation casts upon the respondent to take her services for regular employment that her case has to be considered when ever regular vacancy arose, which was not done, that the regional manager of the competent authority is preparing a panel of sweepers for the purpose of appointment for any branch or office in his jurisdiction. After entering the names of the temporary employees in the panel, the regional manager used to allot candidates to any branch or office when ever vacancy arises and the concerned branch used to issue appointment orders. Though the petitioner has been working for nine years, her name was not included in the panel inspite of several representations. Though one regular employee by name Ramanamma retired, first respondent refused for appointing the petitioner as sweeper in the existing vacancy. In the writ petition, it is also stated that the apex Court held in several cases that casual workers having put in at least 240 days of service should be treated as regular hand. Ultimately, the petitioner’s prayer is for inclusion of her name in the panel and engaging her for the post of sweeper in the existing vacancy. The respondent filed counter denying the allegations raised in the writ petition contending that the petitioner had no legal right that the petitioner’s case is not that she worked for 240 days in a year even on temporary basis and it is not her case that she worked for 240 days continuously during any year and even any person works for 240 days in a year on casual basis cannot claim for regularization as a right as it is necessary to follow the recruitment rules and there are no merits in the writ petition. Now, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as the petitioner was working for 9 years prior to the filing of writ petition in different spells as temporary employee whenever required, she ought to have been considered to be placed in the panel of sweepers for regular appointment. But, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, even according to the writ petitioner, she worked for 41 days in the year 1992, 62 days in the year 1993, 108 days in 1994, 90 days in the year 1995, 88 days in 1996, 64 days in 1997, 22 days in 1998, 47 days in 1999, 49 days in 2000 and 53 days in 2001. Thus, not even in a single year she worked for 240 days. It is her own case that whenever there is a necessity on account of regular employee going on leave, her services were used. Thus, even according to the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner did not acquire any right for being considered for permanent appointment or to be placed in the panel for the post of permanent sweeper. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner had worked for several years though in small spells, in case, she is still working, her name shall be included in the panel of sweepers if any prepared after this day. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 25th November 2010, Rns