IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD SATURDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 958 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 01/07/2008 in WP NO : 6498 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 M. Srinivas, S/o. M. Rajaiah, R/o. H.No. 4-3-121, Bada Bazar, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District. 2 K. Venkataswamy, S/o. Anandam, R/o. H.No. 5-3-70/1, N.H. Road, Opp: Function Hall, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District. 3 K. Vijay Kumar, S/o. Jaihind Goud, R/o. 5-3-91/3-2, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District. 4 G. Sujatha, W/o. B. Srinivas, R/o. MIG 1-16, APHB Colony, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The Chairman and Managing Director, AP Transco, Vidyuth Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Chairman and Managing Director, APNPDCL, OPP: NIT Petrol Pump, Hanamkonda, Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh. 3 The Chief General Manager, (HRD), APNPDCL, Hanamkonda, Warangal District, A.P. 4 The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, APNPDCL, Nizamabad, Nizmabad District, A.P. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.M.NARSIMLOO Counsel for the Respondent No.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by the order dated 1-7-2008 passed in W.P.No. 6498 of 2008, this appeal has been filed. The case of the appellants-petitioners before the learned Single Judge was that they have worked under a Contractor, namely, Sri N.V.L. Narsimha Rao at Kamareddy during 1996 and 1997 and by virtue of the work done by them they have become entitled to be regularized under respondent No.1, namely, APTRANSCO. Upon perusal of the papers, we ﬁnd that the appellants- petitioners could not establish that they were working with the said Contractor as on the cut oﬀ date. In absence of necessary evidence, as per the policy laid down by respondent No.1- Company, the appellants-petitioners could not be regularized. For the aforestated reasons, the learned Single Judge did not entertain the petition and, therefore, the appellants have approached this Court. The petition involves disputed questions of fact and, therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the petition. Looking to the facts of the case, in absence of necessary evidence, no direction can be given to respondent No.1 to regularize the services of the appellants. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. _____________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ___________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 6th September, 2008. GRR