IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 21451 of 1999 Between: Sri Ramula Laxmaiah, S/o. Ramaiah, R/o. 9-9-138, Ramagundam Post, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director, P.A. & W., Singareni Colleries Ltd., Kothagudem, Khammam District. 2 The Divisional Superintendent, Ramagundam Division-III, Enclave Colony, Godavari Khani, Karimnagar District. 3 The General Manager, Singareni Colleries Ltd., Godavari Khani, Karimnagar 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 will be pleased to issue a Writ, more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not absorbing the petitioner even though he made several representations before the authorities which is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, malafide and violating of articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India, granting all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. C. RAMESH SAGAR Counsel for the Respondents: MR. K. SRINIVASA MURTHY The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition was filed for a declaration that the action of the respondents in not absorbing the petitioner in service is arbitrary and illegal and seeking all consequential benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner was that he was appointed as a Badli Filler vide proceedings No.DPO.RG(OC)/SA/593 dated 14-08-1980 of the Divisional Superintendent, Ramagundam, Division-III, the second respondent herein, and subsequently he was appointed as general Mazdoor/temporary Tunnel Mazdoor. He claimed that as he had completed 180 days of continuous service in the respondent company, he was entitled to be absorbed in service on permanent basis as per the Service Rules of the respondent company. His grievance is that inspite of several representations in this regard, his case was not considered and on the other hand, his services were not utilized after the year 1983. 3. The respondent company did not choose to file a counter affidavit. 4. The petitioner admittedly did not work in the respondent company subsequent to 1983. The present Writ Petition was filed after a long lapse of 16 years seeking a direction to absorb him in service in the second respondent company with all consequential benefits. The said prayer, in effect, is one seeking regularization of the services of the petitioner. As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in “Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi and others” [1], the prayer of the petitioner cannot be accepted. No factual evidence has been adduced to show as to how the petitioner entered into the service of the respondent company. In the absence of recruitment as per the prescribed procedure, a direction to regularize the services of the petitioner cannot be issued. 5. The Writ Petition is therefore devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, the dismissal of this Writ Petition shall not preclude the respondent company from considering as per law the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of general Mazdoor on contract/permanent basis, if vacancies are available. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 23-03-2009 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 21451 of 1999 (Dismissed) Date:23-03-2009 CBS [1] (2006) 4 SCC 1