P.NAVEEN RAO
Atlur Krishnaiah – Appellant
Versus
Chairman, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank – Respondent
1. In all these matters, petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank (Bank), in restricting the consideration only to candidates sponsored by the District Employment Exchange/ District Sainik Welfare Board/specialised agencies in the process of recruitment to the post of Office Attendants (Multipurpose) and pray to issue directions to consider them without such sponsorship. In W.P.No.14457 of 2010, in addition, petitioners also seek direction to regularise/ absorb them against the post of Messenger-cum-Sweeper or any other suitable last grade post in preference to the freshers in the recruitment.
2. Petitioners in W.P.No.14457 of 2010 are claiming to be working with the respondent – Bank. Petitioners in W.P.Nos.37521, 37522 and 38457 of 2012 claimed to have worked as temporary sweepers. Petitioners in W.P.Nos.35502, 37432, 34753, 37976, 39109, 39685 of 2012; 12547 of 2013, are all unemployees. In W.P.Nos.35502, 37432, 34753, 39685 of 2012 and 12547 of 2013, interim orders are granted. In W.P.Nos.37521, 37522, 39109 and 38457 of 2012 interim orders were not granted. In W.P.No.37976 of 2012, this Court granted stay of finalisation of selections. I
State of Karnataka and others Vs. M.L. Kesari and others
State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayana Singh
Arun Kumar Nayak v. Union of India
Amarkant Rai v. State of Bihar
State of Jharkhand v. Kamal Prasad
State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)
Excise Superintendent, Malakpatnam, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao
Naveen Kumar v. Chairman and Managing Director, Bharath Dynamics Limited
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.