JUDGMENT In this petition, the petitioner seeks the writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other writ or direction against the respondents for the regularisation of the petitioner's appointment as 'Safai Karmchari' and the proceedings taken up by the respondents for the appointment of a 'Safai Karmchari' are prayed to be quashed and a further direction is also sought against the respondents for not holding any future interview for the appointment of a 'Safai Karmchari', in the Bank of respondent No.3. It is stated by the petitioner that he belongs to Balmiki caste and under their traditions, the areas in a city are demarcated where only the authorised family or its members can work as 'Safai Karmcharis'. This traditional right is heritable. The heritable right of performing the Safai work in the area is described by the petitioner as the 'Jagirdari' and in that respect a certificate (Annex. P/2) is filed , on record and the place where the respondents Bank is situated falls within the petitioner's area. On the Bank being shifted to the petitioner's area, the petitioner has been working as 'Safai Mazdoor' on daily wages from 1.2.1992. The petitioner on 20.3.1992applied to the Bank with all his documents for his regular appointment but nothing was heard from the respondents. Again, on 20.7.1992, the petitioner represented under' Annex. P-1' to the respondents to appoint him as a permanent employee for doing the regular work. The respondents in their reply have submitted that the work from the petitioner for cleaning the Bank's toilets in the Bank building was taken only once a week and the petitioner was paid the labour charges for the day he cleaned the toilets. The petitioner was never in the employment of the Bank in any manner nor the nature of the work required much involvement of labour, as such there was no question of appointment of the petitioner on the daily wages. It is further stated that the respondent did take the steps for the appointment of a part-time 'Safai' Karmchari' and in that regard the names were called by them from the Employment Exchange. Under the Bank's circulars, with a view to providing the job to the candidates of Scheduled Tribes, it was the policy of the Bank throughout the country to reserve some posts for the candidates of Scheduled Tribes along with Scheduled castes. Under the Bank's circulars, with a view to providing the job to the candidates of Scheduled Tribes, it was the policy of the Bank throughout the country to reserve some posts for the candidates of Scheduled Tribes along with Scheduled castes. On the post of 'Safai Karmchari' in order to clear the backlog of S.T. category, it was considered necessary to appoint a candidate of S.T. category only on the post of sweeper. The petitioner's name having not been sent by the Employment Exchange, as also the petitioner not belonging to the Scheduled Tribe, there was no question of considering the name of the petitioner since he was not eligible for the appointment under the Bank's policy adopted for clearing the backlog of S.T. category candidates. Thus, in this petition the petitioner has failed to show his entitlement for appointment to the post. The Bank's policy throughout the State of appointing Scheduled Tribe candidates in order to clear the backlog of S.T. category candidates on the post of 'Safai Karmchari' is to be allowed being reasonable, as out of the reserved category for S.C./S.T. the S.C. category candidates were already given appointment by the Bankand it was backlog of S.T. category which had to be cleared according ~o Annex. R/S. From the petitioner's averments themselves, the petitioner was being paid Rs. 30/- per month, which only supports the respondents stand that the petitioner was being paid the labour charges for the day when he had cleaned the toilets. As such, the petitioner is not an employee of the Bank on daily wages. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner sought the order of stay from this Court on 23.4.93 in the matter of appointment of a sweeper ora 'Safai Karmchari' by respondents, on the basis of the certificate (Annex. P/2) which was stated to be verified and signed by the Ward Officer of the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior. The Ward Officer concerned has denied to have issued any such certificate, and under document Annex. R/9 it was further stated by the Ward Officer that his signatures on Annex. P/2 were forged. To such a clear stand of the respondents and the statement made in document Annex. R/9, the petitioner has made no denial and his document Annex. R/2 is reduced to a forged document. R/9 it was further stated by the Ward Officer that his signatures on Annex. P/2 were forged. To such a clear stand of the respondents and the statement made in document Annex. R/9, the petitioner has made no denial and his document Annex. R/2 is reduced to a forged document. The respondents under their procedure of appointment of a 'Safai Karmchari', have sought a list of the names in that regard from the Employment Exchange which does not include the name of the petitioner and have also taken all other necessary steps for the appointment of such 'Safai Karmchari'. The petitioner has failed to show his enforible right to the post. In view of the above, we find no substance in this petition and the petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.