ORDER : Shivaraj V. Patil, J. - Respondent 1 herein approached the High Court by filing a writ petition seeking regularisation of his services as a full-time employee of the appellant Bank. He has been working in the same Bank since 1977 on a part-time basis on consolidated pay of Rs 1100, subsequently which was increased to Rs 1600. This claim of the respondent was based on the letter of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana, Chandigarh addressed to the Managing Director of all the Central Cooperative Banks in the State. In the said letter in Para 3 it is stated thus: "3. Some of the banks have, from time to time, sought permission for appointment of regular sweepers. It has therefore been decided that in Central Cooperative Banks, keeping in view the size of the building and quantum of work, appointment of part-time or full-time sweepers is necessary according to his own prudence." 2. The High Court taking note of the fact that the respondent has been working as a sweeper in the appellant Bank on part-time basis since 1977, held that "admittedly when the respondent is continuously serving the Bank from the date of his joining the post, which by itself proves that the post of sweeper is a permanent post and is required in the Bank". In this view, it gave direction to the appellant by allowing the writ petition to move the authorities for sanction of the post of sweeper and to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on regular basis as a full-time sweeper. Hence this appeal questioning the validity and correctness of the order of the High Court. 3. In this view, it gave direction to the appellant by allowing the writ petition to move the authorities for sanction of the post of sweeper and to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on regular basis as a full-time sweeper. Hence this appeal questioning the validity and correctness of the order of the High Court. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no sanctioned permanent post of a full-time sweeper in the Bank; having regard to the volume of work, size of the building and the activities of the Bank, there is no need of a full-time post of a sweeper; as such the services of the respondent are continued on a part-time basis; he also submitted that it is clear from the letter of the Registrar and particularly, looking to Para 3 of the letter extracted above that it was for the appellant Bank to consider as to whether the post of a sweeper should be a full-time post or a part-time post; a decision was taken by the appellant Bank to continue the services of the respondent on part-time basis; this being the position, the High Court was not right in giving direction to move the authorities for creation of a full-time post so as to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on a full-time basis. 4. In opposition, the learned counsel for the respondent while supporting the impugned order submitted that the appellant should forward the necessary papers and information for sanction of the full-time post of a sweeper; it is for the authorities to sanction the post or not. According to the learned counsel, the High Court has not given direction to appoint the respondent on full-time basis; the High Court has only directed the appellant to move the authorities for sanction of a full-time post of a sweeper. 5. We find it difficult to sustain the impugned order for reasons more than one. The High Court has drawn an inference that the post of a sweeper is a permanent post merely on the basis that the respondent has been continuously working on a part-time basis since 1977. This inference is contrary to the facts inasmuch as neither the appellant nor has the respondent stated that there is a sanctioned full-time post of a sweeper in the Bank. This inference is contrary to the facts inasmuch as neither the appellant nor has the respondent stated that there is a sanctioned full-time post of a sweeper in the Bank. From the letter of the Registrar, referred to above, it is clear that it was for the appellant Bank to consider whether there should be a part-time post or a full-time post of a sweeper in the Bank. When the appellant Bank has taken a decision to continue the post of a part-time sweeper, the High Court could not give direction to move the authorities for getting sanction for a full-time post. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellant should move the authorities for sanctioning a full-time post cannot be accepted. It is for the appellant Bank in the first place to take a decision whether they need a full-time post of a sweeper. If they do not need such a post, it is not for the Court to compel them to create one and then to move the authorities to give such a post. We have no hesitation in holding that the High Court has committed a manifest error in giving such a direction. In the result, for the reasons stated, the appeal is entitled to succeed, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed accordingly, but with no order as to costs. 6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondent states that the work has increased and it is likely to increase further and on a future date the appellant may consider the case of the respondent for full-time appointment. If there is justification and work for a full-time post, it is open to the appellant to do so, if need be. Appeal allowed.