- (1.) This batch of five writ petitions can be bifurcated only for the purpose of indicating that W P Nos. 624/88 and 2676/88 have been filed to promote the petitioners as Managers in the A P. State Financial Corporation, Respondent No. 1 in all the writ petitions. The other three writ petitions, viz., W P Nos. 1851/88, 16391/88 and 12207/88, have been filed for promotion of the petitioners as Senior Managers in the respondent-Corporation. However, the points arising in both the category of cases are the same as indeed the questions of law and fact also which can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. There may be one or two peculiar features in some cases which will be dealt with separately.
(2.) All these cases have been filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-Corporation to promote the petitioners to the respective positions claimed by them. The statement of facts given in W P No. 624/88 can be taken as a common narration of facts to indicate the area of controversy arising in these cases.
(3.) In W P No. 624/88 the office order No. 524 dated 7-1-1988 of the 1st respondent-Corporation promoting respondents 2 to 17 as Managers is challenged. In W P No. 2676/88 the same office order No. 524 dated 7-1-1988 of the 1st respondent-Corporation promoting respondents 2 to 13 as Managers is challenged. In the other set of three writ petitions dealing with the question of promotion of petitioners as Senior Managers, it may be stated that in W P No. 1851/88 the office order No. 253 dated 7-1-1988 and the office order No. 582 dated 1-2-1988 promoting respondents 2 to 14 are challenged. In W P. 12207/88 the office order No. 523 dated 7-1-1988 and the office order No. 582 dated 1-2-1988 promoting respondents 2 to 10 as Senior Managers are challenged. In WP. 16391/88 office order No. 523 dated 7-1-1988 and office order No. 582 dated 1-2-1988 promoting respondents 2 to 5 are challenged.;