HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 7163 of 2001 ORDER: The inaction of the respondents, in considering the petitioner’s case for regularization of his services as a community teacher, is questioned in this Writ Petition as being arbitrary and illegal. A consequential direction is sought to the respondents to consider his case for absorption into regular service either in the post of community teacher or in any other equivalent post by paying regular time scale of pay from the date of completion of 5 years of service. The petitioner would rely on the guidelines issued by the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare, Hyderabad dated 25.02.1994. He would further state that, despite a representation being made to the first respondent marking a copy thereto to the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare, Hyderabad, no action has been taken by the respondents, nor has any orders been passed on the said representation, till date. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is stated that the petitioner was not employed by the respondents; he was appointed by the Village Development Committee to work as a community teacher in the schools established by them; the government received representations from the villagers requesting for finance and equipment as they were willing to start schools on their own; they would select teachers on their own by paying honorarium so that the teachers would be directly responsible to the village community; the government, having considered the representations, formulated a scheme for providing village development fund as part of the State plan; the scheme envisaged the community/mahila mandali to be provided with community contribution be it in the shape of shelter, kind or cash; the selection of trainer/community teacher/instructor was to be the prerogative of the community; no assistance was being extended by the Integrated Tribal Development Agency (ITDA) to the individuals concerned; the assistance extended was not to exceed Rs.500/- per month, if the commitment and contribution was assured; and the ITDA would not either select or appoint any trainer/instructor. It is evident from the scheme that the petitioner was appointed as a community teacher by the villagers concerned and the ITDA had no role to play in this regard. No right much less one referable to a statute, has been brought to the notice of the Court whereby the petitioner is entitled to claim the benefit of regularization, that too, by the ITDA. I see no reason, therefore, to grant the relief sought for in the Writ Petition. Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner be given liberty to file a representation to the concerned authorities. While no relief can be granted in this writ petition, it is made clear that the order now passed by this Court does not preclude the petitioner from availing such other remedies as are available to him in law. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:02.12.2010 usd