IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 7375 of 1999 Between: 1 P. Joseph S/o. Satyanandam, Narsarao Pet Main branch, Erlapadu (P), Nadendla (M), Guntur Dist. 2 J. Dasu S/o. Bikshalu, Narsarao Pet Main branch, Mulakalur (P), Narsarao Pet (M), Guntur Dist. 3 Y. Venkaiah S/o.Luther, Narsarao Pet Main branch, Mulakalur (P), Narsarao pet (M), Guntur Dist. 4 M.J. Prashantha Rao S/o. Hanumaiah, Narsarao pet Main branch, Shalemngar (P), Narsarao Pet (M), Guntur Dist. 5 K. Vijaya Babu S/o. Joseph, Narsarao Pet (A.D.B.) Narsarao Pet (V & M), Guntur Dist. 6 V. Chitty Babu S/o. Thomas Narsarao Pet (P & S) branch, Shalemnagar (P), Narsarao Pet (M), Guntur Dist. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Manager, S.B.I. Main Branch, Narsarao Pet, Guntur Dist. 2 The Manager, S.B.I. A.D.B. Branch, Narsarao Pet, Guntur Dist. 3 The Manager, S.B.I. (P & S) Branch, Narsarao Pet, Guntur Dist. 4 The Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, State Bank of India, Vijayawada. 5 The Chief General Manager (Personal), State Bank of India, Bank Street, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an appropriate Writ, order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the action of the respondents in not considering the claims of the petitioners who are more experienced and in giving priority to fresh candidates by notifying the vacancies to the respective district employment exchanges in violation of the Apex Court's order, as being discriminatory, arbitrary,violative of the right to life as enshrined in ARts.14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the claims of the petitioner for appointment to the posts of non-messengers by giving weightage to their past experience and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.TULASI DAS Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: None appears for the petitioners. The learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that the issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision in STATE BANK OF INDIA v. V.M.RAJAIAH & OTHERS[1] and this writ petition is also liable to be dismissed in terms of the said judgment. In view of the same, following the principle laid down in the above judgment, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 4.3.2008 DA THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 7375 of 1999 4.3.2008 [1] 1998 Lab.I.C. 2798