THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION No. 12023 of 1996 DATED: 21-11-2006 Between: E.Chandra Sekhar Rao. …petitioner and The Karimnagar Coop. Urban Bank Ltd., Karimnagar, represented by its Joint Registrar/District Coop.Officer/ Person In-charge. …Respondent. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA W.P.No. 12023 of 1996. Oral order: This writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings dated 20-6- 1996 whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated without any notice. The facts of the case are that as there were vacancies in the Respondent Bank the petitioner has applied for the same on 2-4-1994 and 6-8-1994 for appointment as Junior Assistant. Without considering his application, some unqualified persons were appointed and their services were also regularized. The petitioner made a representation to the respondent to consider his case along with others. But the said representation was rejected. Assailing the rejection of his representation, he filed Writ Petition No.305 of 1996 before this Court. This Court issued notice before admission on 18-1-1996, and during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent considered the case of the petitioner and appointed him as Clerk vide proceedings dated 1-6-1996 on daily wage basis. Thereafter, by order dated 20-6-1996 the respondent has terminated the services of the petitioner with effect from 20-6-1996 consequent on the regular employees reporting to duty after completion of their J.D.C. Training. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent inter-alia stating that the services of the petitioner were terminated for want of vacancy consequent on reporting of the regular employees to duty after completion of J.D.C. Training, and there is no work load requiring the services of the petitioner and, daily wage appointments are prohibited in the bank in terms of Act II of 1994. It is also stated that the future appointments are governed by the Rules and guidelines, and the petitioner cannot have any right whatsoever to claim appointment ignoring the rules and the existing law and, the case of the petitioner would be considered in future vacancies, if any, along with other candidates. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner as and when vacancies arise. The petitioner was given appointment as a daily wage employee. Earlier when his services were terminated, he filed a writ petition, and during the pendency of the said writ petition, he was taken back into service. The fact that the petitioner was given appointment on daily wages is an indication that it is a stop gap appointment. When the regular employees, consequent upon completion of their J.D.C. Training, reported to duty, the respondents terminated the services of the petitioner for want of vacancy. When there is said to be no vacancy available for accommodating the petitioner, who was appointed on daily wages, no exception can be taken to the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner, and no direction can be given to the respondents to reinstate or regularize the services of the petitioner. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the respondents have agreed to consider the case of the petitioner against future vacancies, a direction in that regard be given. As agreed to be the respondents in their counter, the case of the petitioner may be considered against future vacancies along with the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ N.V. RAMANA, J 21st November, 2006. GRR