(1.) THE appellant was selected and appointed as Clerk -cum -Cashier in Rayalaseema Grameena Bank, the 1st respondent herein, on 01 -07 -1984. He was placed on probation, and the same was declared on 21 -05 -1985, after it was extended. The seniority list for the posts of Junior Clerk -cum -Cashiers as on 25 -06 -1990 was published on 24 -09 -1990. The appellant was shown at Sl. No. 69. Another seniority list was published on 26 -08 -1995, for the posts of Clerk -cum -Cashiers. The name of the appellant did not find place in it, on the basis that it is in relation to the Clerks, who are appointed earlier, in point of time.
(2.) THE 2nd respondent issued a Circular dated 15 -11 -2000, enclosing a comprehensive seniority list of the posts of Clerk -cum -Cashiers as on 01 -10 -2000. The position of the appellant was pushed down substantially, compared to the one, assigned to him in the seniority list dated 24 -09 -1990. The representations made by him did not yield any result. Therefore, he filed W.P. No. 17735 of 2001 with a prayer to declare the action of the respondents in placing him at Sl. No. 242 in the seniority list dated 15 -11 -2000 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
(3.) SRI K.G. Krishna Moorthy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the appointment of the appellant as Clerk -cum -Cashier was through direct recruitment, and the seniority in that post is to be fixed on the basis of the rank assigned by the Selection Committee. He contends that the seniority was accordingly fixed in the circular dated 24 -09 -1990, and it was altered to the detriment of the appellant, in the year 2000. He submits that Regulation 13, which was treated as a basis for altering the seniority of the appellant was held to be illegal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several decisions including the one, in Chairman, Puri Gramya Bank v. Ananda Chandra Das : (1994) 6 SCC 301, and the judgment of this Court in Manjira Grameena Bank, Sangareddy, Medak v. M. Ashok Kumar, 2002 Suppl. (1) ALD 344 (DB).