THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO.25403 OF 2003 Dated: 12.08.2011 Between: T.V.V.S.Mohana Rao @ T.Mohana Rao …..Petitioner And Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad Rep. by its Registrar and another …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO.25403 OF 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction to declare the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner as illegal and for a direction to them to reinstate him into service. 2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and also the learned standing counsel for respondents No.1. None appeared for respondents No.2, but that does not make any difference to their case. 3. The petitioner was earlier appointed on daily wage basis as watchman on 1-8-2000 and it is his case that subsequently he was also paid a consolidated salary of Rs.750/- per month and later his salary was increased to Rs.900/- per month. He has given various details about his service in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 4. It should be noted that the petitioner earlier filed writ petition No.13963 of 2002 seeking the relief of regularisation of his services w.e.f. 1-8-2000 i.e. initial date of his appointment. That writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 1-8-2002 holding that the petitioner was not entitled to have his services regularised as he was working only on daily wage basis. The petitioner’s grievance is that soon after the dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition, his services were orally terminated and therefore the respondents should be directed to reinstate him into service. 5. The learned counsel for petitioner relied upon decisions given in Madan Gopal Vs. The State of Punjab and others[1] and Jagadish Mitter Vs. The Union of India[2] to show that the respondents could not have terminated him from service in the manner in which they terminated and he should have been given an opportunity to put forth his case and therefore he should be directed to be reinstated into service. 6. It may be noted that even according to the affidavit of the petitioner, he earlier worked only on daily wage basis and later on he worked on consolidated pay. He was never appointed even temporarily to any sanctioned post in respondents’ institution. In these circumstances, the above two decisions cannot come to rescue of the petitioner and they are totally distinguishable on facts. 7. The learned counsel for petitioner further relied upon two decisions of this Court one given in writ petition No.8417 of 2003 and the other given in writ petition No.24784 of 2000. In writ petition No.8417 of 2003, the petitioners therein sought for their absorption in the respondent’s organisation therein i.e. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam. After considering the merits of the matter, this Court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for reengaging them and fixation of their pay of scale and pass appropriate orders treating them on par with the petitioners in writ petition No.102 of 1994. In other case i.e. writ petition No.24784 of 2000 a reading of the order in it would show that the petitioners therein were in service and this Court directed the respondents therein to regularise the services of the petitioners therein as and when vacancies arise, as the respondents therein gave such an undertaking. In the present case, the petitioner has been terminated from service on the ground that his services were not required and in these circumstances, it is not possible for this Court to give any such direction as the petitioner worked for some time on daily wage basis and for some time on a consolidated pay. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 9. Parting with the matter, it is however made clear that if the petitioner approaches the respondents with representation for any job, they may consider the same as per rules. ___________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR 12th August, 2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO.25403 OF 2003 DATE: 12.08.2011 [1] AIR 1963 Supreme Court 531(1) [2] AIR 1964 Supreme Court 449(1)