NARAIN Vs. GENERAL MANAGER, ANDHRA BANK.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the petitioner seeks the writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other writ or direction against the respondents for the regularisation of the petitioner's appointment as 'Safai Karmchari' and the proceedings taken up by the respondents for the appointment of a 'Safai Karmchari' are prayed to be quashed and a further direction is also sought against the respondents for not holding any future interview for the appointment of a 'Safai Karmchari', in the Bank of respondent No.3.

(2.) IT is stated by the petitioner that he belongs to Balmiki caste and under their traditions, the areas in a city are demarcated where only the authorised family or its members can work as 'Safai Karmcharis'. This traditional right is heritable. The heritable right of performing the Safai work in the area is described by the petitioner as the 'Jagirdari' and in that respect a certificate (Annex. P/2) is filed , on record and the place where the respondents Bank is situated falls within the petitioner's area. On the Bank being shifted to the petitioner's area, the petitioner has been working as 'Safai Mazdoor' on daily wages from 1.2.1992. The petitioner on 20.3.1992applied to the Bank with all his documents for his regular appointment but nothing was heard from the respondents. Again, on 20.7.1992, the petitioner represented under' Annex. P -1' to the respondents to appoint him as a permanent employee for doing the regular work.

(3.) THUS , in this petition the petitioner has failed to show his entitlement for appointment to the post. The Bank's policy throughout the State of appointing Scheduled Tribe candidates in order to clear the backlog of S.T. category candidates on the post of 'Safai Karmchari' is to be allowed being reasonable, as out of the reserved category for S.C./S.T. the S.C. category candidates were already given appointment by the Bankand it was backlog of S.T. category which had to be cleared according ~o Annex. R/S. From the petitioner's averments themselves, the petitioner was being paid Rs. 30/ - per month, which only supports the respondents stand that the petitioner was being paid the labour charges for the day when he had cleaned the toilets. As such, the petitioner is not an employee of the Bank on daily wages.