HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.14329 of 2000 ORDER: The proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 31.03.2000, whereby the Government decided to terminate the services of the petitioner as an NMR driver with the Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Vijayawada as his appointment was irregular and in violation of the provisions of Act 2 of 1994, is under challenge in this Writ Petition as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner joined the services of the 3rd respondent on 10.05.1994. He made a representation to the 3rd respondent on 09.06.1997 to regularize his services. It is his case that the 3rd respondent had recommended his case to the 2nd respondent who, by proceedings dated 03.08.1997, had requested permission to absorb the petitioner as a regular driver. The petitioner would contend that there are several vacancies in the posts of drivers with the 3rd respondent, and that he is entitled to be absorbed in one such post. He would question his termination as an NMR driver as arbitrary and illegal. In the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in A. Manjula Bhashini v. Managing Director, A.P. Women’s Co- operative Finance Corporation Ltd[1], whereby the validity of the A.P. (Regularization of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act 1994 was upheld, the petitioner is not entitled to seek regularization contrary to the provisions of the Act. Sri B. Bhaskara Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would, however, contend that, by virtue of Section 6(2)(e) of the said Act, the provisions of the Act do not apply to religious institutions wherein the petitioner is engaged as a driver. Even if the said submission is presumed to have some basis, it is not even the petitioner’s case that there is any other scheme, for regularization of the services of employees of the 3rd respondent, whereby the petitioner is entitled to seek regularization of his services. In the absence of a scheme for regularization, no mandamus can be issued by this Court directing the 3rd respondent to regularize the services of the petitioner. The fact, however, remains that, pursuant to the interim orders of suspension granted by this Court on 04.08.2000, the petitioner continues to discharge the duties of a driver at the 3rd respondent temple even as on date. Ends of justice would, therefore, be met if the respondents were directed to continue the petitioner in service till the posts of drivers are filled up through a regular process of selection, and appointments are made to the said posts. Sri B. Bhaskara Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner would request permission of this Court to submit a representation to the 1st respondent. In case the petitioner makes a representation for extension of applicable scales of pay, or for being continued in service, within a period of four weeks from today, respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass orders thereupon within a period of three months thereafter. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date: 22.07.2010 MRKR [1] 2009(5) ALD 58 (SC)