IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.18558 OF 2011 BETWEEN: Md.Manjer Hassan S/o.Md.Quamruddin Ansari And others …. Petitioner AND The Bank of India, Rep. by its General Manager (HR) and another. …. Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.18558 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in withholding the petitioner’s appointment order to the post of General Banking Officers Scale-II, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the 1st respondent to appoint the petitioner to the post of General Banking Officers Scale – II forthwith in the existing vacancies notified on 20-10-2009, as per the merit list published by the 1st respondent on 18-04-2011 as has been done in respect of other candidates in the said merit list, with all consequential benefits, including notional seniority and other benefits. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition may be stated as follows. On a notification issued by the 1st respondent – Bank of India, on 20-10-2009, inviting applications for appointment of 386 posts of General Banking Officers Scale – II, the petitioner submitted online application. The 1st respondent issued hall ticket to the petitioner for the written test, which was held on 24-01-2010, and the petitioner appeared for the same and qualified. Thereafter, the petitioner received call letter for interview held on 27-04-2010 and appeared. On 01-06-2010, the 1st respondent published a final list of 47 candidates, who got selection, giving them 30 days time to report for duty. Thereafter, on 18-04-2011 the 1st respondent published second list of 23 selected candidates in which the petitioner was shown at serial No.1. It is also stated in the selection list that the offer/appointment letters are being issued to candidates within 30 days. To his surprise, the petitioner did not get the offer/ appointment letter even after expiry of 30 days as stipulated in the final list. The petitioner approached the Zonal Office of the 1st respondent and the authorities informed him that the recruitment process is being processed by the Head Office at Mumbai only, and that they are unable to give any information in that regard. Thereafter, he contacted the concerned authorities in the Head Office on number of occasions, but they informed him that he would get the offer letter soon. The other candidates, whose names were found in the merit list along with the petitioner, were already issued the offer letters. The petitioner did not get the offer letter till date, inspite of standing at serial No.1 in the merit list. The petitioner was working under the control of the 2nd respondent and he already informed the 2nd respondent about his selection in the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent gave no objection for his selection. So, the petitioner is eagerly waiting for his offer letter for the post of General Banking Officer Scale-II in the 1st respondent Bank. The 1st respondent authorities did not issue the offer letter to him. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the final selection list was published on 18-04-2011 and the name of the petitioner has been found at serial No.1, that it is stated in the selection list that the appointment orders will be issued to the candidates within 30 days, and therefore, he requested to give a direction to the 1st respondent to consider his application. 4. It seems that the process of selection was over and final merit list was published on 18-04-2011 and the name of the petitioner has been found in that list. It is not known as to for what reason the appointment order to the petitioner was not issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the appointment orders were already issued to the other candidates, whose names were found in the final list. Though the petitioner is not entitled for appointment, he has got a right to seek appointment when his name was found in the final selection list especially when other candidates in the list were given appointment orders. Petitioner is entitled to know for what reason, the appointment order is not given. 5. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to take an appropriate decision in the selection process to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and pass necessary orders within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J July 11, 2011. Note: Issue CC in three (3) days. B/O. KTL