THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P. NO. 17044 of 1997 Dated: 08-02-2007 Between:- 1. T. Madhava Rao s/o T. Appaiah, aged about 28 years, R/o Arempala village, Khammam ® (M) Khammam District 2. D . Veerendra Babu s/o Venkata Rama Narasaiah, 5-1-66, Suggalavari thota, Khammam. …Petitioners And 1. The Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad 2. T h e Executive Officer Sri Ramachandrula Guruvaiah Gari Satram & Sankara Matam, Trunk Road, Khammam town, Khammam District. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P. NO. 17044 of 1997 O R D E R The first petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the 2nd respondent-institution on 15.07.1994 and the second petitioner as Record Assistant on 26.10.1994. They were given consolidated pay initially, but were later placed in the time scale of pay. Their services were treated as purely temporary. Based on the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments dated 03-07-1997 the petitioners were informed that since they were appointed after 25.11.1993, notices were issued asking them to show cause why their services should not be terminated and that their objections, if any, on the subject may be submitted within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition. Sri M. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, would place reliance on an order of this Court in W.P. No. 16946 of 1997, dated 12.07.1996 wherein this Court held that the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1963 were not applicable to disciplinary proceedings in relation to office holders and servants of the temples and other institutions and that the show cause notice which was issued making a reference to the said rules was required to be set aside. Learned counsel would also place reliance on an order of this Court, in W.P. No. 327 of 1996 dated 14.10.1996, wherein this Court held that since G.O.Ms. No. 212 dated 22.4.1997 was not applicable, the respondent authorities could not withhold regularization of services of the petitioners therein on the ground of non-fulfillment of any of the conditions prescribed in the said G.O. The authorities were directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization subject to the rule of reservation. Sri M. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that since G.O. Ms. No. 212 dated 22.04.1997 did not apply to the second respondent-institution, failure of the petitioners to comply with the conditions stipulated therein would not result in their being denied the benefits of regularization. Once it is held that the scheme of regularization, as enunciated in G.O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22.04.1994, was not applicablde, the question that falls for consideration is whether the petitioners, who were appointed on temporary basis, are entitled to continue in service or to claim that their services should be regularized. As has been held by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others[1], no right to seek regularization accrues in employees engaged on daily wages/temporary basis. In the absence of any regularization scheme made applicable to them, and inasmuch as the petitioners herein have no right to claim regularization, the impugned show cause notice cannot be faulted. It is also well settled that unless the show cause notice has been issued by an authority incompetent to do so or is without jurisdiction, this Court would not interfere in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Dated: 08-02-2007 vp [1] 2006 (4) SCC-1