IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26240 of 2008 Between: 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Hyderabad. 2 The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, Hyderabad. 4 The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad Range, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND M.A. Hamed, S.I. of Police, Dabeerpura PS, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT 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, orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with the orders dated 30-8-2007 in O.A.No.5023/2006 including all further proceedings relating thereto on the file of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash the same by holding as erroneous and contrary to law. Counsel for the Petitioner: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.POODATTU AMARENDER The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Aggrieved by the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.5023 of 2006, dated 30.8.2007, this writ petition has been filed. This Court while admitting the writ petition granted interim suspension of the order of the Tribunal on 2.12.2008 in W.P.M.P.No.34359 of 2008. The respondent herein has filed vacate petition in W.V.M.P.No.1622 of 2009 to vacate the said interim order dated 2.12.2008. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. The request of the respondent for regularization of his out of seniority service i.e., the period of temporary promotion, was not accepted by the Government vide memo No.25911/Legal-1/A1/2004, Home (Legal) Department, dated 18.1.2006, and accordingly the 3rd petitioner issued memo No.L&O/E5/1794/2004-06, dated 25.1.2006, stating that the request of the respondent has been examined by the Government and his request for regularization of out of seniority service has been rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed the said O.A.No.5023 of 2006 for regularization of his services as Sub Inspector from the date of his initial appointment. The Tribunal allowed the said O.A.No.5023 of 2006 by order dated 30.8.2007 on the ground that the similarly situated persons were granted regularization from the date of their initial appointment by proceedings dated 24.4.2004 and 13.5.2004, but the similar relief was declined to the applicant/respondent and therefore the case of the applicant is entitled to be considered for regularization retrospectively from the date of his initial appointment as out of seniority service. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition has been filed. The learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that in similar facts and circumstances of the case this Court in W.P.No.19291 of 2008, dated 8.4.2009, set aside the order of the Tribunal giving liberty to the applicant therein to make fresh representation before the Government. This Court further held that the temporary promotion does not confer any right much less legally enforceable right to claim seniority. It is also made clear that equality clause cannot be invoked in respect of the persons who has not been regularized in accordance with the rules, though the Government has granted some concessions and that by itself does not given any right to claim equality doctrine. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, following the aforesaid order of this Court in W.P.No.19291 of 2008, dated 8.4.2009, this writ petition is allowed setting aside the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.5023 of 2006,dated 30.8.2007. However, this order does not preclude the respondent from making appropriate representation to the Government seeking appropriate relief, in which event the same shall be considered and appropriate orders be passed thereon. No order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. __________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J. 7.7.2009 kpr