Judgment :- (Elipe Dharma Rao, J.) 1. The appellant challenges the order dated 11.11.2008 passed in W.P. No. 17259 of 2008 whereby and whereunder his request for issuing a direction to the first respondent to include his name for appointment to the post of Assistant in the second respondent Bank was rejected. 2. According to the appellant, he had obtained Diploma in Co-operative Training in the year 1988 and subsequently, he got graduation in May 2002. His name was registered before the Employment Exchange on 13.7.1997. Subsequently, he produced his +2 marks and upgraded his qualification. Thereafter, the Diploma as well as Degree Certificates were also registered before the Employment Exchange. In the meantime, the second respondent approached the first respondent with a request to send a list of eligible candidates to fill up the post of Assistant in the Co-operative Bank in Tiruvannamalai District. The appellant was expecting that his name would be sponsored as he belongs to Backward Community besides being a physically handicapped person. However, his name was not sponsored inspite of the fact that the Backward Community priority candidates were sponsored for the period from 14.9.1994 to 28.7.2003. Hence, he filed the writ petition. 3. Learned single Judge found that while nominating the priority category candidates, the candidates, who fall upto the land acquisition priority category, were nominated. While considering one physically handicapped candidates for each non-priority vacancy, those who have registered upto 06.6.1990 for Backward Class and 19.12.1995 for open competition were nominated. However, the registration of the appellant was subsequently and as such, the learned Judge declined to grant the relief. It is the said order that is impugned in this appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent filed a counter affidavit wherein it was indicated that for the physically handicapped non-priority vacancy as well as for priority vacancy, sponsorship was received from those who registered upto 06.6.1990 and 19.12.1995 respectively. The registration of the appellant was only at a later point of time and as such, he was not sponsored. 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that there are 18 more vacancies and the second respondent is in the process of getting a list from the first respondent. 7. The registration of the appellant was only at a later point of time and as such, he was not sponsored. 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that there are 18 more vacancies and the second respondent is in the process of getting a list from the first respondent. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant would be satisfied in case he is considered for such appointment depending upon the seniority. 8. In the said circumstances, we are of the view that interest of justice would be met by directing the first respondent to sponsor the name of the appellant. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to sponsor the name of the appellant also in case he comes within the zone of consideration in the light of his employment seniority. The writ appeal is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.