HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH W.P.NO.1963 OF 2002 Dt.30.9.2010 Between: T.Prasada Rao ..Petitioner And The State Bank of Hyderabad, Head Office, rep. by its General Manager and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH W.P.NO.1963 OF 2002 ORDER: Petitioner seeks writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not absorbing the petitioner as Sweeper- cum-water boy-cum-lunch room attendant in the 3rd respondent bank and seeking to make another temporary appointment as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the 3rd respondent to appoint the petitioner as Sweeper-cum-water boy-cum-lunch room attendant in the 3rd respondent bank. It is the case of the petitioner that he was engaged as Attender on daily wage basis in 1989 in Jeelacheruvu branch and in 1991 he was asked to work in Khammam main branch of the State Bank of Hyderabad. From 1982 onwards with some artificial breaks he has been working as Sweeper-cum- Attender in Gandhi Chowk branch of State Bank of Hyderabad, Khammam. Regardless of the nomenclature under which he engaged, he worked as Sweeper-cum- scavenger in the morning and during working hours of the Bank he worked as Attender. Though the wages were very low, he rendered service for over a decade with the hope that he is entitled to be absorbed on permanent basis. He has been making representations to the respondents for his absorption, but without considering his case a notification was issued for the post of Sweeper-cum-water boy-cum-lunch room attendant in accordance with the rules. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that the petitioner was engaged as casual worker on daily wages basis in the exigencies of the bank depending on the requirement during 1991-94. Whenever he was engaged, he was engaged for the day and he was paid for the work he had attended. His work started when he was engaged and ended on the same day after completion of the work given to him like cleaning of chairs, tables and arranging records etc., and he never engaged for scavenging. It is admitted that the petitioner made representations for regular appointment in the bank, but it does not give any right to the petitioner to be appointed in the regular employment. It is stated that pursuant to the notification the petitioner also appeared for interview along with other candidates, but he was not selected by the interview committee as the selections were held on merit. It is stated that though the petitioner was engaged for some time as casual labour, the Branch Manager has recommended his name for regular appointment on consolidated wages as Peon in 1993 and for Sweeper post in 1994, but he is not entitled for absorption and the recommendation of the Branch Manager cannot be accepted. More over, the recruitment shall be done for any regular post in the bank according to procedures and rules and as the petitioner has failed in the process of selection, he cannot seek employment by back door entry on the ground that he worked as casual labour for some time. In fact, the petitioner was not appointed or engaged for doing the work as Sweeper- cum-water boy-cum-lunch room attendant and he was appointed on daily wage basis as casual labour to attend the work whenever required. The respondent has advertised on 4.1.2002 for appointment of the permanent employment, but not on adhoc basis as claimed by the petitioner. However, as per the bipartite settlement entered into between the management of the bank on one side and the unions of workmen on the other side, the remedy available to the aggrieved party is to raise the dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court granted interim direction directing the respondent to continue the services of the petitioner as Sweeper if he continued in that post as on 4.2.2002. However, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was not continued as Sweeper and the regular appointment was already made and the petitioner never questioned the regular appointment. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioner to question the said selection and also approach the Industrial Tribunal, if he is so advised. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. 30.9.2010 kpr