THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 22300 of 2008 Date: 01.07.2010 Between: M.Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONERS AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary to Government, Hyderabad and 2 others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 22300 of 2008 O R D E R : The petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.12648 of 1997 claiming that he was working as NMR in the agricultural marketing committee, Ramachandrapuram continuously for more than eight years and therefore, he was entitled for regularisation of his services with effect from the date of his appointment. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 14.02.2007 with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation of his services in any suitable vacancy available as per G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 within a period of three months. In compliance with the said order, having considered the petitioner’s claim, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 12.10.2007 stating that the petitioner’s services cannot be regularised as he did not complete five years of continuous service as a contingent employee as on 25.11.1993. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance upon the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 05.03.2008 whereunder the particulars of the petitioner’s service were furnished to the Assistant Director of Agricultural Marketing Committee, contended that as the petitioner had worked continuously from 14.08.1984 to 24.02.1991, the respondents ought to have regularised his services. However, it is not disputed before this Court that the petitioner was not in services of the 3rd respondent as on 25.11.1993. The mere fact that he worked continuously from 1984 to 1991 is of no consequence as he was admittedly not in service as on 25.11.1993. Apparently, the conditions under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, have not been satisfied and therefore, the stand taken by the 2nd respondent that the petitioner was not entitled for regularisation of his services cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal on any ground whatsoever. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI,J Date: 01.07.2010 KLP