IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 28327 of 2008 BETWEEN: Bachalakuri Nageswara Rao S/o. Rubenu, R/o. Thummalapalem Village, Guntupalli Post, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. Genco, rep. by its Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Engineer, Vijayawada Thermal Power Station, A.P. Genco, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more fully in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering petitioner's case for the post of Junior Plant Attendant as illegal, improper, arbitrary besides being opposed to principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent consider petitioner's case under Physical Handicapped persons quota or Scheduled Castes Category in the respondent corporation and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.CHAITANYA Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM (SC FOR AP GENCO) The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s case for the post of Junior Plant Attendant as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri K. Chaitanya, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 3. The petitioner claims to have worked as casual labour (water boy) with the respondents. He filed WP.No.27395 of 1998 in this Court, which was disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider his case for the post of Junior Plant Attendant in terms of B.P.Ms.No.37 dated 18.05.1997. Accordingly, the petitioner was interviewed on 03.02.1999. As he was unsuccessful in securing the employment, he filed WP.No.5524 of 2005, which was dismissed by this Court on the ground of laches. The present writ petition is filed on the ground that the respondents are considering the casual labour, who worked along with him and that there are number of vacancies in the category of physically handicapped persons. 4. In my considered opinion, the petitioner has no vested legal right to seek direction against the respondents for his appointment contrary to the prescribed procedure. Though the petitioner averred that the respondents are considering casual labour, who worked along with him, he has not given any details in support of such averments. The respondents, being an instrumentality of State, are bound to make appointments in accordance with the statutory regulations governing recruitments. If they deviate, the petitioner can always question such action. But he cannot seek a backdoor entry on the purported plea that other similarly placed persons are being absorbed. A relief based on the plea of negative equality cannot be claimed by the petitioner. As held by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in STATE OF KARNATAKA v. UMA DEVI [1] and reiterated by three Judge Bench in OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR v. DAYANAND [2] , the petitioner, who worked with the respondents as casual labour, cannot claim regularization or absorption without undergoing the regular process of selection in accordance with the procedure laid down by the respondents. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any ground to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J December 29, 2008 DSK [1] (2006) 4 SCC 1 [2] (2008) 10 SCC 1