Page 128 - GB SUBJECTS NEW - ALL PAGE NO

`

Aggrieved by the orders of the CC&RCS, Hyd dt.15.12.2005, TTD ECCS Ltd filed
W.P.No.11794/2006 against CC&RCS / DCO / Asst. Registrar-cum-Inspecting Officer, o/o
DCO / M. Muni Govindiah, S. Lokanadham, S. Nagaraju, J. DharaniBabu, G.R. Babu, S.
Ramakrishna, K. Guru Murthy, B. Madhusudhana Reddy, seeking orders declaring the
Proc.Rc.No.25345/2004-U.B-IV, dt.23.3.2005 and 15.12.2005 in appointing the
respondents 4 to 11 as employees of the Bank and also declare the enquiry conducted by
the 3rd respondent and the report dt.17.2.2005 submitted by him is violative of directions
issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.1738/2001 and consequently direct the
respondents not to insist the petitioner for appointing the respondents 4 to 11.

Whereas, S. Ramakrishna filed W.P.No.22984/2006 against Govt. of AP rep. by
CC&RCS / TTD / TTD ECCS, seeking orders to declare the inaction of the respondents
herein in not implementing the Proc. Rc.No.25254/2004ECCS-VB-IV, dt.15.12.2005
through which the 1st respondent has, interalia, held that the initial appointment of the
petitioner to the post of Attender in the Bank is in accordance with the statutory rules and
regulations, and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate petitioner as Attender
with back wages, by reckoning the seniority from the date of his initial appointment.

Similarly, M. Muni govindaiah, S. Lokanadham filed W.P.No.23457/2007 against
TTD ECCS / CC&RCS, seeking directions to reinstate them into service in terms of
Proc.Rc.No.25245/2004-UB-IV, dt.23.3.2005 & 15.12.2005 and extend all the
consequential attendant monetary benefits in terms of the Judgement dt.6.6.2001 in
WP.No.27100/1996.

Since the issue involved in above three writ petitions are identical, the Hon’ble HC
of AP, heard the three W.Ps together and issued Common Order on 17.3.2009:

“The Registrar caused the enquiry with regard to the appointments made by the
society and proceeded to issue Proc. Dt.15.12.2005 directing the society to issue
appointment orders to 9 individuals. It is immaterial as to under what provision the
Registrar got the enquiry conducted with regard to validity of the appointments made by
the society. The DCO had gone through the records of the society in detail and submitted
report. The Registrar considered the report and directed the society to appoint 9
individuals whose appointments were in accordance with the recruitment rules and the
rule of reservation. I do not see any irregularity or illegality in the proceedings issued by
the CC&RCS. In view of the above, W.P.No.11794/2006 is dismissed.
W.P.No.22984/2006 and W.P.No.23457/2007 are allowed. In the circumstances no costs.”

Aggrieved by the Common Order in above three W.Ps., the Society filed Writ
Appeals in all the 3 petitions viz., (i) W.A.No.784/2009 in W.P.No.11794/2006 filed by TTD
ECCS (ii) W.A.No.785/2009 filed by TTD ECCS in W.P.No. 22984/2006 filed by S.

116