IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.No.8792 of 2001 Between: A. Srinivas .. Petitioner AND The Managing Director, A.P. Women’s Cooperative Finance Corporation, Vengalraonagar, Hyderabad. .. Respondent ORDER: This writ petition is seeking a writ of mandamus against the respondent to regularize the services of the writ petitioner declaring the oral termination of his services as arbitrary and illegal. The writ petitioner claims that he was selected in a regular selection process on 30-07-1991 by a duly constituted Selection Committee for the post of a Shorthand and Typewriting Instructor in the respondent Corporation in which post he joined duty on 1-9-1991. The writ petitioner further claimed that the Corporation was effecting artificial breaks in his services and he was forced to file W.P.No.16552 of 1997 in which interim directions were given on 24-07-1997 to pay the minimum time scale and not to give effect to artificial breaks and ultimately, on 23-1-1998, this Court directed the management to extend the same benefits as extended by the Apex Court to similarly placed employees. Still the order was not implemented and C.C.No.560 of 1999 filed by the writ petitioner was of no avail. The writ petitioner claimed to have exercised even the option to work at the head office in pursuance of a circular from the Managing Director. The writ petitioner claimed to have been shocked to receive oral communication requiring him not to attend the office from 1-5-2001 compelling him to file the writ petition. While admitting the writ petition on 27-4-2001, this Court gave an interim direction in WPMPNo.11175 of 2001 to continue the writ petitioner in service and subsequently in W.V.M.P.No.1664 of 2001, this Court passed an order on 28-2- 2002 as follows: “In view of the fact that as per proceedings of the District Manager, A.P. Women’s Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited, Nizamabad, dated 4-7-2000 the writ petitioner worked as Shorthand Instructor up to 30-9-1998 and he subsequently worked for five months from November, 2000 to April, 2001 on consolidated wage, it cannot be said that the petitioner is working on regular basis. Therefore, the writ petitioner is not entitled to continue in service unless he is appointed in a clear vacancy. The interim direction granted by this Court dated 27-4- 2001 is accordingly vacated.” Sri Dontireddy Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri J.S. Raju, learned standing counsel for the respondent-Corporation are heard. The point for consideration is the relief to which the writ petitioner is entitled at this distance of time. The writ petitioner was appointed as Shorthand Instructor under the respondent Corporation at its centre at Perkit, Nizamabad District on 30-07-1991 and the order of appointment shows that the appointment was purely temporary and for a period of one year only. Subsequently, the writ petitioner claimed to have worked up to 30-09-1998 in the same position with artificial breaks and he was fighting for a regular appointment since 1997 through this Court in W.P.No.16552 of 1997 but in vain. Sri Dontireddy Venkata Reddy, learned counsel, referred to the various documents filed by him showing a different treatment extended to similarly placed employees appointed under the identical circumstances as the writ petitioner. But any roving enquiry cannot be made as to under which circumstances those employees were regularized and those employees were considered for further elevation to higher posts in the Corporation. Similarly, Sri Dontireddy Venkata Reddy, learned counsel, also referred to the decision of this Court in W.P.No.18821 of 2001 dated 11-08-2010 in which the learned judge directed the same Corporation to continue the writ petitioner therein in service till a regular vacancy was available. But, the distinction on facts is that the writ petitioner therein was continuing in service and the writ petitioner therein was also put on minimum time scale and under such circumstances, as it was only due to the non-availability of sanctioned post by then, he could not be absorbed, the learned judge gave such a direction. Irrespective of other considerations, notwithstanding the challenge by the writ petitioner to the alleged oral termination of his services with effect from 1-5-2001, the fact remains that his services stood discontinued as recorded by this Court in its interim orders dated 28-02-2002. The learned Judge refused to intervene opining that it cannot be said that the writ petitioner was working on regular basis and was, hence, not entitled to continue in service unless he is appointed in a clear vacancy. So what alone remains for consideration is the consideration of the case of the writ petitioner for appointment in a clear vacancy in the face of his continued eligibility to have such appointment. The respondent Corporation can be directed to extend such consideration both on humanitarian grounds and also due to the fact that for more than 7 years in the prime of his life, his services had been utilized by the Corporation giving him a hope and expectation of the likelihood of his being absorbed in a regular vacancy in the Corporation. The Corporation can be directed to extend such a consideration to the writ petitioner and the matter has to be accordingly closed in the light of the earlier orders of this Court vacating the interim direction granted on 27-04-2001. Therefore, the respondent-Corporation is directed to consider the case of the writ petitioner subject to his eligibility keeping in view the services rendered by him earlier in the Corporation and further keeping in view the directions given by this Court in W.P.No.16552 of 1997 dated 23-01-1998. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 13-12-2010 Ksn