IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL If TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE \ ■■ / ■ «- PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 522 OF 2019 Between; P. Nagaraju, S/o P Sambasiva Rao, Aged 36 years, Sub-Staff (Temporary), Bank of Baroda (Ongole Branch), Near CVNB Reading Room Opp- District Library, Ongole, R/o.H.No.1-2-1(15), Sitarampuram, Near hill towers, Ongole, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh ...Petitioner AND 1. Deputy General Manager, Bank of Baroda, 10-1-44/10, Peejay plaza, 4th floor, VIP Road, Visakhapatnam 2. Assistant General Manager, Bank of Baroda, Gudivalivari street, SNS plaza, Vijayawada 3. Bank of Baroda, Rep by its Chairman, having its Head Office At Sura] Plaza 1, Sayam G Bandrakurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051. 4. Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Ongole Branch, Near CVN Reading Room, Opp- District Library, Ongole, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to grant appropriate relief more in the nature of writ of mandamus under article 226 of the constitution of India declaring action of the respondents more particularly respondent no.4, is not allowing the petitioner to continue in service as sub-staff from 15.12.2017 onwards , as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, unconstitutional, mala violating the Articles 14, 16, 21 of the constitution of India and issue consequential directions directing the respondents to continue the petitioner in service as substaff the existing vacancies in the branch of respondent No.4 Bank or in any existing vacancies in other branches and further direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for absorbing/regularizing the services of the petitioner as sub-staff in the branch of the respondentNo.4 Bank. in lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents more particularly Respondent No.4 to allow the petitioner to continue in service in the Respondent No.4 branch of Bank of Baroda as Sub-Staff or in the existing vacancies in any other branch of the Respondent Bank, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. P V KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: T S VENKATARAMANA The Court made the following order: 1 APHC010998192018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 522/2019 Between; ...PETITIONER P. Nagaraju AND ...RESPONDENT{S) Deputy General Manager and Others Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.P VKRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent{S); 1 .T S VENKATARAMANA The Court made the following; ORDER; This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer: " to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring action of the respondents more particularly Respondent No.4, is not allowing the petitioner to continue in service as sub staff from 15.12.2017 onwards, as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, unconstitutional, mala violating the Articles 14, 16, 21 of the constitution of India and issue consequential directions directing the respondents to continue the petitioner in service as sub-staff in the existing vacancies in the branch of Respondent No.4 Bank or in any existing vacancies in other branches and f 2 further direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for absorbing/ regularizing the services of the petitioner as sub-staff in the branch of the Respondent No.4 Bank and pass such other order or orders ” Heard Sri P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri 2. T.S.Venkata Ramana, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank. Sri T.S.Venkata Ramana, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent- bank would submit that the petitioner is not working in the 4^^ respondent 3. bank. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that recording the 4. same, the writ petition may be disposed of. Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 5. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- A. VENUGOPALA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// N OFFICER S To, 1. Deputy General Manager, Bank of Baroda, 10-1-44/10, Peejay plaza, 4th floor, VIP Road, Visakhapatnam 2. The Assistant General Manager, Bank of Baroda, Gudivalivari street, SNS plaza, Vijayawada 3. The Chairman, Bank of Baroda, having its Head Office At Sura] Plaza 1, Sayam G Bandrakurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051. 4. The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Ongole Branch, Near CVN Reading Poom, Opp- District Library, Ongole, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. ^ • 5. One CC to Sri. P V Krishnaiah Advocate 6. One CC to Sri. T S Venkataramana 7. Three CD Copies [OPUC] Advocate [OPUC] GSC HIGH COURT DATED:25/04/2025 Of x i2JUN®5 1 S- ORDER WP.No.522 of 2019 £espATC»^ DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS