IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 8312 of 2004 Between: 1. P.Surendher Reddy, s/o Hanmantha Reddy, Driver (E-800928), APSRTC, Siddipet Bus Depot, Medak District. 2. K.Srinivas Reddy, s/o Papi Reddy, Driver (E-800925), APSRTC, Dubbaka Bus Depot, Medak District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Medak Region at Sangareddy. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Siddipet Bus Depot, Medak district. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Dubbaka Bus Depot, Medak District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate writ of mandamus or any other writ declaring that the action of the respondents in not regularising the services of thepetitioners and disengaging their services from time to time and giving breaks in their services as bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unreasonable Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent : SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI FOR R The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioners and disengaging their services from time to time and giving breaks in their service as bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unreasonable. The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as Drivers in the respondent Corporation in Siddipet and Dubbaka Depots of Medak District, subsequent to the notiﬁcation issued by the 1st respondent in the year 1998. The appointment of the petitioners was made through the selection process by conducting driving test, medical test and interviews etc., after veriﬁcation of the original educational certiﬁcates. Instead of regularizing their services, the respondents are giving artiﬁcial breaks and avoiding regularization of services and transferring the petitioners from one region to another without any reason. Because of non-regularization of their services, they are getting only Rs.141/- per day. It is their case that the respondents are wantedly disengaging the services of the petitioners and in view of the disengaging of the services respondents are avoiding the regularization of their services. Though they have been appointed in the year 1998 their services have not been regularised so far. Therefore, they ﬁled the present writ petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed as Grade II Drivers pursuant to the notiﬁcation issued by the 1st respondent in the year 1988 and the petitioners have undergone the selection process facing the interview, driving test and medical test etc., and their appointments have been made after due veriﬁcation of their educational qualiﬁcations. The petitioners joined in the service with fond hope that their services would be regularised. But the respondents have failed to regularise the services of the petitioners, on the other hand, they are being given artiﬁcial break in their services so as to avoid the beneﬁt of regularization of their services. He also submits that from the year 1998 till now the petitioners are continuing in service with artiﬁcial breaks only with a fond of hope that their services would be regularised. Therefore, he submits that appropriate orders may be issued directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation submits that the petitioners were engaged and are being paid the wages at Rs.141/- per day and there is no continuity of service for their regularization. In view of the same, the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of regularization of their services. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side what is to be seen is whether the petitioners are entitled to the beneﬁt of regularization of their services. The respondent Corporation has issued notiﬁcation in the year 1998 for ﬁlling up of Grade II Drivers. Pursuant to the said notiﬁcation, the petitioners have made applications and they were called for interview and accordingly after undergoing driving test, medical test and after verifying their educational qualiﬁcations and by keeping the original educational certiﬁcates with the Corporation, they were given employment in the Corporation, and they are continuing in service as on today. That being the position, no reasons have been assigned as to why the petitioners are not entitled to the beneﬁt of regularization. In view of the above, this writ petition can be disposed of with the following direction. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent Corporation to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the result, accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 11-08-2008 LSK