Telangana High Court
WP/2089/2010 of N. Suresh Kumar, Vs Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, on 29 December 2011
SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 2089 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in not treating the petitioners as seniors to the respondents 5 to 26 herein, as illegal, and direct the
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Arguments
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAHWRIT PETITION No. 2089 of 2010
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ ofmandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in nottreating the petitioners as seniors to the respondents 5 to 26herein, as illegal, and direct the respondent No.1 to promote thepetitioners to the post of Officer Scale-I cadre by declaring thatmere selectee status of the respondent No.5 to 26 does not makethem seniors to the writ petitioners in as much as the writpetitioners were appointed in clerical cadre in their pre-amalgamated bank prior to the respondent Nos.5 to 26, andstarted physically working in the year 1985, by which time thestatus of the respondent Nos.5 to 26 is only that of mereselectees, without being given any appointment and assigned anyduty.
The case, in brief, is:-
The writ petitioners were initially appointed to the post ofJunior Clerk-cum-cashier in Sree Anantha Grameena Bank,Anantapur, in the year 1985. Later, Sree Anantha Grameena Bankwas amalgamated with Rayalaseema Grameena Bank andPinakani Grameena Bank w.e.f 01.06.2006 and the said banks,after amalgamation into a single bank, is now known as AndhraPragathi Grameena Bank, with its headquarters at Kadapa. Thegrievance of the petitioners is that though they are seniors torespondent Nos.5 to 26, their seniority has been overlooked andrespondent Nos.5 to 26 were promoted as Officer Scale I Cadre inthe 1[st] respondent. The petitioners submitted a representation dated 02.01.2010, but no action was taken by the 1[st] respondent. Hence, this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that respondentNos.5 to 26 are juniors to that of the petitioners since they areappointed subsequent to the appointment of the petitioners, andthat the petitioners made a representation dated 02.01.2010 to the1[st] respondent, but no action has been taken on the saidrepresentation. The counsel further submits that because of thechanged circumstances, certain aspects are to be brought to thenotice of the authorities which are not mentioned in the earlierrepresentation, and hence, he may be permitted to make a freshrepresentation.
Normally, an affected party is to be served, prior to passingof any order. In the present case, respondent Nos.5 to 26 areparty respondents who have not been served. Further, thepetitioners sought to make a fresh representation.
Hence, without going into merits of the case, and further,keeping in view that the learned counsel for the petitioner confinedhis relief to a direction to the 1[st] respondent to consider therepresentation dated 02.01.2010, this writ petition is disposed ofpermitting the petitioner to make a fresh representation within aperiod of two weeks, and in which case, the 1[st] respondent isdirected to consider the representation dated 02.01.2010 alongwith subsequent representation, in accordance with law.
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________________________
JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
KSM