By the consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken for final disposal.
2.This writ petition has been unnecessarily filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner after some arguments sought permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition. But, this Court is not inclined to grant permission for withdrawal of the writ petition.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents have appointed some temporary messengers without resorting to the due process of law. Therefore, a request was made by the petitioner to the respondent, Pandyan Grama Bank, Virudhunagar, to recruit Office Assistants (Multi-purpose) following due process of law which includes proper advertisement through newspaper or else the petitioner would be losing his opportunity once and for all by sending a representation dated 16.06.2017. Finding no response, the petitioner has come to this Court with the present writ petition.
4.Referring to a communication dated 13.06.2017 issued by the General Manager, Pandyan Grama Bank, the learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that the respondents had already regularized 19 temporarily engaged persons, who have fulfilled the criteria stipulated by the Tribunal award. When a copy of the Tribunal Award was sought for by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, the respondents have not come forward to submit the same. Secondly, if the respondents proceed further to recruit Office Assistants (Multi-purpose) without following the due process of law, they would be automatically absorbed after completion of 240 days of service. Therefore, he pleaded for a direction to the respondents to recruit the Office Assistants (Multi-purpose) only in the manner known to law.
5.Again referring to the circular which was sent to all branches / Regional officers/ other officers dated 22.06.2017, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that reservation and concessions for SC/ST/OBC shall be applicable for the process of absorption of the temporary employees in compliance with the Government guidelines. But, in the present case, they have not followed the reservation and concessions. Therefore, he pleaded that the writ petition may be allowed.
6.This Court is unable to find any justification on the part of the petitioner to come to this Court. First of all, communication dated 13.06.2017 clearly shows that only as per the award passed by the Tribunal, for regularization of the temporary employees, after identifying the temporary employees, who were engaged in service for five years and above as on 31.03.2011, 19 temporarily engaged persons who have fulfilled the criteria were regularised. Therefore, the question of issuing a direction to the respondents to recruit the temporary employees only through procedure does not arise.
7.Secondly, when the respondents have complied with an award passed by the Tribunal, it is not known how the petitioner is aggrieved. Totally being misconceived, the petitioner has unnecessarily approached this Court and wasted the valuable courts time.
8.The writ petition stands dismissed accordingly. .