IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16266 of 1999 Between: Md. Masood … Petitioner AND Andhra Pradesh State Seeds Development Corporation Limited, rep., by its Managing Director, HACA Bhavan, 2nd floor, Saifabad, Hyderabad. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Sri G. Praveen Kumar for Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16266 of 1999 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare order dated 07.11.1998 passed by the respondent Corporation, as illegal and unjust. Heard Sri G. Praveen Kumar representing Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. No one represented the respondent. The petitioner was appointed as Watchman on daily wage basis in the year 1985 by the respondent Corporation. After continuing him till the year 1988, his services were terminated. The petitioner raised I.D.No.107 of 1994 before the Labour Court, which was allowed with the direction to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with 25% back wages. Subsequently, the petitioner filed WP.No.23620 of 1997 for regularization. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization. In pursuance of the said order, the impugned proceedings are issued by the respondent, wherein the petitioner’s claim for regularization was rejected on the ground that there are no vacancies in the category of Watchman/Attender, as per the cadre strength fixed by the Corporation. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the services of the petitioner’s juniors, namely, Sri B. Babu Rao and Sri K. Eshwara Reddy were regularized from January, 1998 and the action of the respondent in denying a similar relief to the petitioner is arbitrary. In the counter affidavit filed by the Managing Director of the Corporation, it is stated that the petitioner and five others were not included in the seniority list, as their cases were pending due to filing of the writ petitions by the Corporation. Though ordinarily a person, who did not enter the service by undergoing proper procedure, is not entitled for regularization, the Corporation cannot indulge in invidious discrimination while regularizing the services of certain persons, who are juniors and denying a similar benefit to the seniors. On this limited ground alone, the petitioner deserves relief in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization, if the two persons, namely; Sri B.Babu Rao and Sri K. Eshwara Reddy were juniors to the petitioner and their services were regularized. If no post is available, the Corporation shall create a supernumerary post to accommodate the petitioner, if the services of his juniors were regularized. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 22.12.2008 ES