K.Laxman, v. The Telangana Grameena Bank, Represented By Its

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO Writ Petition No. 12476 of 2016 Order:

The petitioner claims to be the local candidate of Adilabad District and belongs to BC-B Community. He passed Intermediate and later on Degree through Open University Course in the year 2012. He was selected as casual labour in the year 2005 on the basis of Intermediate qualification and was posted in the Municipal Complex Branch, Adilabad of the first respondent-Bank. After working there for three years, he was posted at Sirpur (U) Branch. It is his case that due to viral fever he could not attend to his duties for about three months and he was on leave. After recovering from health problem, when he approached the respondent-Bank they orally directed him not to attend the duties. He already completed six years of service.

2. The respondent-Bank filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner did not undergo any selection process. He was engaged only on temporary basis based on the educational qualifications and no selection process would be initiated in respect of casual labour employed by the Bank. The petitioner worked with the third respondent branch intermittently from 2009 to 2012 and never worked continuously. However, from the year 2012 onwards the petitioner himself stopped attending the Bank. The petitioner is not entitled for regularization of his services in view of the above facts.

3. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner and in the reply except stating that he worked in the first respondent-Bank for 11 years with a fond hope of regularization of his services he did not dispute the fact of not attending the duties from December 2012 onwards.

4. In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant the reliefs as sought for by the petitioner. But, however, directs the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner as and when Attenders are

appointed by taking into consideration the experience gained by the petitioner by giving preferential treatment. However, it is open to the respondents to engage the services of the petitioner in spite of rejection of the request of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition, if the respondents so choose.

5. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

6. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ________________________ A.

RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: 10.08.2016 Nsr