IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 9692 of 1999 Between: U.Manaiah S/o.Venkaiah Jeedimetla, R.R.District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager A.P.S.R.T.C., Parigi Depot, Parigi, RR.District. 3 The Depot Manager A.P.S.R.T.C., Vikarabad Depot, Vikarabad, R.R.District .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the services of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment i.e., 01/10/1994 and regularising w.e.f. 1/4/97 i.e., after three years is illegal, arbitrary unjust and violation of Art.14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd respondent herein to regularise the service of the petitioner from the date of the initial appointment i.e., 1/10/1994 by extending all the benefits following from such regularisation and to 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.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following Order: The relief sought for in this writ petition is for regularization of the petitioner’s services from the date of his initial appointment i.e. from 01-10-1994. Petitioner contends that the action of the respondents in regularizing his services with effect from 01-04-1997 is arbitrary and illegal. Sri S.M.Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that in view of the averments in the counter affidavit that the respondents, vide proceedings dated 09-09-1999, had regularized the services of the petitioner with effect from 01-10-1995, the cause in the writ petition does not survive adjudication and the writ petition has become infructuous. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. ______________ 29-02-2008 usd