THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR W.P.No.2265 of 2004 Date: 20.10.2011 Between: Smt. R. Parvathamma .. Petitioner AND The Railway Board, rep.by the Chairman, Railway Board, New Delhi, and 5 others .. Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Writ Petition No.2265 of 2004 ORDER (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.G. Shankar): The orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal, for short) in O.A.No.375 of 2003 declining to grant the relief sought for by the writ petitioner is questioned through this Writ of Certiorari. 2. The petitioner was a substitute Pharmacist. Contending that the services of two other Pharmacists, viz., respondents 5 and 6 were regularized, the petitioner seeks for regularization of her services as substitute Pharmacist Grade-III in South Central Railway Health Unit. 3. The facts of the case are: a) The third respondent constituted a panel of substitute Pharmacists with the sixth respondent, the petitioner and the fifth respondent in the same order of merit. The fifth respondent was engaged as substitute Pharmacist Grade-III with effect from 08.01.1987 till 26.09.1988 and worked in Guntakal Division. The petitioner was engaged in the place of the fifth respondent with effect from 27.09.1988. As there was no possibility of reengagement of the fifth respondent in Guntakal Division, the fifth respondent applied against vacancy in Hyderabad Division. He was engaged in the Sub- Divisional Hospital, Purna with effect from 10.06.1989. He continued in the Hyderabad Division as substitute Pharmacist till his regular absorption on 02.09.1996. b) The petitioner was initially appointed as substitute Pharmacist Grade-III in Guntakal Division with effect from 09.01.1987. She was so engaged since regular selected employee went on long leave. The services of the petitioner were terminated when the regular employee joined duty. The petitioner, however, was granted temporary status with effect from 09.05.1987. She worked for various periods in four spells from 09.01.1987 till 07.09.2000 and her services were regularized from 08.09.2000. 4. The point for consideration is whether the services of the petitioner deserve to be regularized with effect from the date of initial appointment i.e., 07.01.1987. 5. It is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that there was no vacancy for regularization of the services of the petitioner prior to 08.09.2000, since the petitioner worked between 09.01.1987 and 07.09.2000 as a substitute Pharmacist only. Further, the petitioner has been trying to bring parity with the respondents 5 and 6. She contended that when the services of the respondents 5 and 6 could be regularized, the services of the petitioner also deserve to be regularized. 6. However, it may be recalled that the services of the fifth respondent were regularized with effect from 02.09.1996, albeit he was first engaged way back on 08.01.1987. The sixth respondent was initially engaged as a substitute Pharmacist on 04.05.1984. Her services were regularized with effect from 29.09.1990. Thus, in the case of respondents 5 and 6, it is not the case of their initial appointment, but it was the date of clear vacancy that was taken into consideration to regularize their services. Assuming that the petitioner can seek parity with the respondents 5 and 6, she cannot claim that the services of respondents 5 and 6 were regularized from the date of their initial appointment. The petitioner, therefore, cannot contend that her services should be regularized from the date of her initial appointment. 7. Added to it, the petitioner opted out for Guntakal Division of the South Central Railway, whereas the fifth respondent had no alternative, but to choose Hyderabad Division, as there was no vacancy available in Guntakal Division. Similar is the case of the sixth respondent. The petitioner in fact filed as many as five applications before the Tribunal. She was unsuccessful in all her claims. She has tried to set up a new claim through the present application before the Tribunal. We are afraid that the claim of the petitioner for regularization with effect from the date of her initial appointment cannot be accepted since first, where there was no vacancy by the date of her initial appointment and where the initial appointment of the petitioner was in a leave vacancy; secondly, she cannot claim parity with respondents 5 and 6 and finally, even if the petitioner claims comparison with respondents 5 and 6, her claim is not sustainable, where the services of the respondents 5 and 6 were also not regularized from the date of their initial appointment, but only on subsequent dates when clear vacancies arose. The reason behind the claim of the petitioner is the issuance of privilege passes. It, however, is not germane for the enquiry and the determination of the claim of the petitioner in the present case. 8. Suffice it to notice that the sixth respondent was appointed initially about three years prior to the appointment of the petitioner, that the services of the respondents 5 and 6 were regularized not from the date of their initial appointment, but from the date when clear vacancies arose and that the regularization of the petitioner with effect from 08.09.2000 is sustainable. The claim of the petitioner for regularization with effect from 07.01.1987 is consequently found to be unjustified. The Tribunal was perfectly justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity or error. We see no merits in this writ petition. 9. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. _____________ V.V.S. RAO, J ____________ K.G. Shankar, J Date: 20.10.2011 Isn/Rrb