Dismissed

P. Kareem Basha, v. The Branch Manager

Telangana HC8 Dec 2006WP/25474/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed two writ petitions filed by bank sub-staff challenging the discontinuation of their services. The Court held that since petitioners were appointed on temporary basis without regular vacancies or adherence to regular selection procedures, they had no right to claim continuance of services. The writs were deemed devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed with costs order explicitly not allowed for.

P. Kareem Basha, Vs The Branch Manager — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶3

Writ Petition Nos.25474 and 25475 of 2006

¶4

Dated: December 08, 2006

¶5

Writ Petition No.25474 of 2006

¶6

Between:

¶7

P. Kareem Basha, S/o. Hussain, aged 28 years, Working as Sub-staff in Andhra Bank at Chirala Branch, Prakasam District.

¶8

… Petitioner

¶9

And

¶10

The Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Chirala Branch, Prakasam District, and another.

¶11

… Respondents

¶12

Writ Petition No.25475 of 2006

¶13

Between:

¶14

Syed Sajid Ali, S/o. Dawood Ali, aged 28 years, Working as Sub-staff in Andhra Bank at Guravajipeta Branch, Prakasam District.

¶15

… Petitioner

¶16

And

¶17

The Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Guravajipeta

¶18

Branch, Prakasam District, and another.

¶19

… Respondents

¶20

Common order:

¶21

In these cases, as common questions of fact and law arise for consideration they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶22

2. These two Writ Petitions have been filed seeking Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in discontinuing the services of the petitioners as sub-staff in Andhra Bank as illegal and arbitrary.

¶23

3. Petitioners who studied upto 7^th class and appointed for some time as sub-staff in Andhra Bank claim that they have been working in Chirala Branch and Guravajipeta Branch respectively since 1997. Their grievance is that though have been working since 1997, respondents are intending to terminate their services without assigning any valid reason and are proposing to appoint some other persons on temporary basis in their place.

¶24

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶25

5. Learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, submits that respondents have prepared a scheme whereby a panel of employees working on temporary basis was prepared having regard to the length of their services. He further submits that the employees who fit into the said scheme are being appointed and petitioners do not figure in the

¶26

aforesaid panel.

¶27

6. It is to be seen that, petitioners were not appointed against any regular vacancies by a selection committee by following regular procedure. They were only appointed on temporary basis and have worked intermittently. As much as they were appointed on temporary basis, they do not have any right to claim continuance. In the absence of the petitioners being appointed against regular posts, by following regular procedure, no direction as sought can be issued.

¶28

7. The Writ petitions are devoid of merits and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶29

JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY.

¶30

December 08, 2006 MRR

P. Kareem Basha, v. The Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Kareem Basha, v. The Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samala Satyam,S/o. S. Yadagiri(Died) Per L.Rs Vs The Commissioner

S.S.Educational Society, represented by its Principal Vs Andhra Pradesh State Council for Higher Education

Y. Venkaiah S/o Suryanarayana Vs Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies

Dasari Harini Kumari Vs The Registrar, Dr. N.T.R University of Health Sciences

A. Narasimha S/o Late a. Narsaiah Vs Osmania University, rep by its Registrar

Arrow Cables Limited, Sy.No.343, Bachipalle Village, Vs The a.P.Southern Power Distribution Company Limited