THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.18949 of 2011 ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent-Sri Venkateswara University in not regularising the services of the petitioner, on par with her juniors, as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently to direct the respondent to change forthwith the date of her regularisation of services in the cadre of Cleaner from the date when her juniors were regularised in the Women’s Hostel of the respondent University and with all other consequential benefits. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition may be stated as follows: According to the petitioner, she was engaged in the respondent University on NMR basis, on payment of daily wages, in the year 1982. Her daily wages were enhanced from time to time and she was continued in the respondent University with artificial breaks in her service. By proceedings dated 23.02.1983 the respondent University directed the petitioner and one C.Kanthamma to be continued on daily wage rate basis as Rice Cleaner. While so, the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.357, Education, dated 12.10.1992 to absorb the persons engaged in the Last Grade Service in the respondent University on NMR basis subject to fulfilling of certain conditions. In pursuance of the said G.O., though the respondent has regularised the services of several persons, who were engaged on NMR basis to work in the Women’s Hostel of it, including Smt.C.Kanthamma, vide proceedings dated 04.01.1994, it did not regularise the services of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner is fully qualified and eligible for regularisation of her services along with others including Smt.C.Kanthamma, T.Rukminamma, A.Chandramouli, M.Munirathnam etc., whose services were regularised in the respondent University. Hence, she made several representations to the respondent University. As there was no response from the respondent, she approached this Court by filing W.P.No.21308 of 2004 and this Court directed the respondent University to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation. Thereafter, by the proceedings of the Vice Chancellor, dated 01.06.2005, the petitioner was temporarily appointed as Cleaner in the scale of pay applicable to the Last Grade Post. The grievance of the petitioner is that the persons, who were engaged in the respondent University along with her on the same terms and conditions, including Smt. C.Kanthamma, were absorbed in the respondent University w.e.f 07.01.1994, and that the persons, who were engaged two to three years after her, as Casual Mazdoors, on the same terms and conditions, were also absorbed during 1996-1997, and some of them were allowed to retire from service on attaining superannuation with all pensionary benefits, but, she was absorbed in the respondent University vide proceedings dated 01.06.2005. Hence, she made several representations including the latest one dated 19.04.2011 requesting the respondent University to change the date of her absorption/regularisation atleast notionally with effect from the date when her juniors were regularised. But, so far, the respondent did not take any action on the said representations. Hence, this writ petition. 3 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even though the services of the persons, who were engaged subsequent to the petitioner, were regularised during 1996-1997, the services of the petitioner, who is working since 1982, were regularised w.e.f 01.06.2005 only. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent- University contended that whether the services of the petitioner have to be regularised with effect from the date on which her juniors were regularised or not has to be decided by the respondent University in accordance with the rules and regulations of it. 6. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent University to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the rules and regulations of it, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter communicate the same to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. K.C. BHANU, J Date: 19.07.2011 va