IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 12816 of 1998 Between: D. Kondal Rao S/o Krishna r/o Madugula, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chairman & Managing Director Indian Bank, 31, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001. 2 The Zonal Manager, Indian Bank, Liberty Plaza, 4th Floor Himayathnagar, Hyderabad 500 029. 3 Sri Kota Krishna Murthy, Zonal Manager, Indian Bank, Zonal Office, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. 4 The Regional Manager, Indian Bank, Subbaramireddy Complex, Daba Gardens, Visakhapatnam. 5 The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Madugula Branch, Visakhapatnam. ...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 the nature of Writ of Mandamus (i) declaring the action of the respondents in not regularising the services of the petitioner as wholly illegal and unjust; (ii) consequently direct the respondents to regularise the petitioner in the category of sub staff or alternatively prepare a panel of temporary sub staff by including the name of the petitioner in the said panel for regularisation; and (iii) to continue the petitioner in the same position which he was holding as on 3-4-1998 till he is absorbed in out of the regular cadre of temporary sub staff and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.SURESH The Court made the following : ORDER: It is represented by both sides that the same question which has fallen for consideration in this writ petition has also fallen for consideration in WP No. 12820 of 1998 and batch and these batch of cases have been decided by a learned single Judge by judgment dated 14.7.2007. The operative portion of the judgment in WP No. 12820 of 1998 and Batch is to the following effect : “Further, it may not be possible for this Court to direct the respondents to prepare a panel or to examine as to whether there is any such necessity for preparing a second panel etc. Preparing a panel of sub-staff, who worked earlier with the Bank, is purely a policy matter and this Court cannot venture to enter into such field. It is always open for the respondents, even at this stage, to prepare a second pane of sub-staff for being engaged on regular basis or in leave vacancy as directed earlier by a Division Bench of this Court in the above Writ Petitions. However, learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that whether a second panel is prepared or not as per the directions of this Court, petitioners are entitled for engagement on temporary basis or in leave vacancy de hors the empanelled list. There is no difficulty as to this position. In view of Section 25-G & H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, petitioners are entitled for such preferential treatment for being re-engaged as and when the vacancy arises, whether it is leave vacancy or permanent one. But, this has already been taken care of in orders earlier passed by a Division Bench of this Court, as noticed above. Therefore, there is no necessity of giving any further directions in these writ petitions. For all the above reasons, the Writ Petitions are devoid of any merit and are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed….” The learned single Judge had in fact placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court on 17.3.1998 in WP No. 19747 of 1996 and batch. The said writ petition was disposed by the Division Bench with the following directions : “The cause espoused in these writ petitions was already answered in another batch of writ petitions i.e., Writ Petition No. 18998 of 1997 and batch, by our judgment dated 16.2.1998. Following the same, we dispose of all these Writ Petitions with the following directions : A list of 1200 candidates is said to have been prepared in the year 1990 for requisitioning to man the sub-staff posts temporarily in leave vacancies. It is stated that these personnel in the list were already regularized, but we are not having any definite material on that aspect. Insofar as the necessity of preparing a second list is concerned, if the competent authority feels such necessity, then if the petitioners are qualified for empanelment, their names may be considered for such empanelment. We make it clear that the Bank authorities shall be entitled to engage sub-staff, if the candidates in the empanelled list are available; butr if the Bank authorities want to engage any person on temporary basis in the leave vacancy de hors the empanelled list, they have to consider the claims of the petitioner before considering the claims of any fresh candidates. No costs.” Reiterating the same and directing the respondents to comply with the orders passed by the Division Bench stated supra, this writ petition also stands disposed of. No costs. --------------------------------------------- NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Knk Dt : 28.2.2008 ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{GSNM}