IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 25560 of 1999 Between: J. Somaiah S/o.J. Naganna, R/o.D.No.27/372, Ambedkarnagar, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Bank, Regional Office, Rep.by the Regional Manager, Anantpur District. 2 Andhra Bank, Head Office, Koti, (Recruitment Section), Rep.by the General Manager, 3 Andhra Bank, Old Town Branch, Anantpur District, Rep.by the General Manager, .....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 issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in nature of Writ of MANDAMUS DIRECT the Respondents to APPROVE the Candidature of the Petitioner for Appointment as Sweeper or Part Time Sweeper in the Branches of Respondents Bank in Anantpur District as he is selected by taking his past Services as Temporary Sweeper/Attender into consideration after declaring the Action of the 2nd Respondent in not approving his candidature, though they Appointed many persons possessing more educational qualification i.e., more than Vth class and denying the same benefits to the petitioner as violation of Art. 14 & 16 of Constitution of India and against Supreme Court Directive, and consequently Direct the Respondents to APPOINT the Petitioner as Sweeper or Part Time Sweeper in any Branch of the Respondents Bank in Anantpur District, in the interest of Justice and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.SUDHAKAR REDDY & NEERAJA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: DR.K.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 25560 of 1999 ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in identical circumstances W.P.Nos.20764 and 22061 of 2000 were disposed of by this Court by order dated.27-12-2007 holding as under:- “On a true and fair construction of the settlement, in particular paragraph Nos. 7 and 8, it is clear that the panel to be prepared is a panel that is to operate till the absorption of the last of the empanelled candidates. It is also clear that absorption would be as and when vacancies in sanctioned posts arise. The settlement neither expressly nor by any compelling implication warrant or obligate the creation of new posts or sanction of new posts to forthwith accommodate all temporary empanelled employees. Paragraph No.8 (c) of the settlement as already stated, does not obligate the bank to continue any casual empanelled temporary sub-staff (empanelled in terms of paragraph No.7 of the settlement) until absorption into regular vacancies. Paragraph 8 (c) merely ensures that the bank should employee the empanelled temporary sub-staff proportionate to the availability of leave vacancies and on rotation. In the affidavit in opposition filed in these writ petitions, the bank has clearly and categorically admitted its obligation to continue in temporary service those empanelled candidates who are yet to be absorbed subject to availability of leave vacancies and on rotation basis. The bank has also pleaded that the rotational methodology is adopted to ensure equitable opportunity to all the empanelled sub staff, as the availability of leave vacancies is lesser than the number of temporary sub-staff available for such casual engagement. The bank’s counter affidavit also states that the impugned circular dated 12-10-2000 is not intended to be in subversion of any of the bank’s obligations under the settlement dated 09-01-1995. In the circumstances above, there appears no basis for the apprehension of the petitioners that they would not be absorbed in terms of the settlement dated 09-01-1995 or would be disengaged forthwith irrespective of the availability of leave vacancies in the districts to which each of the petitioners respectively belong. The petitioners claim for immediate absorption has also no basis in the settlement. For all these reasons, there are no merits in the writ petition. Recording the averments, admissions and statements made by the respondent-Andhra Bank in the counter affidavit, as have been extracted above, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.” Since the petitioner herein is also similarly situated this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above order. No costs. --------------- G.ROHINI,J 21st APRIL 2008 mrb