LAWS(APH)-2008-7-18

NIJAMALA NARASIMHULU Vs. PINAKINI GRAMEENA BANK NELLORE

Decided On July 09, 2008
NIJAMALA NARASIMHULU, PENCHALAIAH Appellant
V/S
LAKSHMI N.RAO Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges the selection and appointment made by respondent nos. 1 and 2 to fill 29 vacancies of Driver-cum-Messenger in respondent No. 1-Bank, vide proceedings, dated 27. 02. 2006.

(2.) THE petitioner claims to have been engaged as part-time sweeper-cum-Messenger in respondent No. 1-Bank from the year 2000 onwards. In the year 2004, respondent No. 1 initiated steps for selection and empanelment of 75 candidates as temporary part-time Sweeper-cum-Messenger for the branches in the districts of Nellore (45) and Prakasam (30 ). The Employment Exchanges concerned were addressed letters to sponsor 180 and 120 candidates respectively. The petitioner approached this Court by filing W. P. No. 1846 of 2003 with a prayer to direct respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider his case. On the basis of the directions issued in the writ petition, the case of the petitioner was also considered. The list of 75 candidates was accordingly prepared, after conducting interviews from 3rd to 6th March, 2004. The petitioner states that he was placed at Serial No. 12 in the list.

(3.) IN the year 2006, respondent No. 1 intended to fill 29 posts of Sweeper-cum-Messenger, on regular basis. It sought permission of the sponsoring Bank to fill these posts with candidates occurring in the panel of 75 candidates prepared in the year 2004. Permission was accorded and thereafter, intimations were given to the empanelled candidates, including the petitioner. Interviews were conducted on 20th and 21st February, 2006. Through the impugned proceedings, a list of 29 selected candidates is displayed. The grievance of the petitioner is that though respondent Nos. 3 to 5, who figured much below him were selected and appointed, he was denied the appointment. He contends that once the panel of 75 candidates was prepared after the process of selection, there was no basis for altering the positions therein, for making regular appointments.