IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SUNDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17918 of 2001 Between: 1 The State of A.P. Rep By Its Secretary Panchyat Raj Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad-500 022. 2 The State of A.P. Rep By Its Secretary Finance & Planning Dept., Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad-500 022. 3 The Superintending Engineer Panchyat Raj Dept., Erramanzil Colony, Panjagutta, Hyderabad-500 082. 4 The Executive Engineer Panchyat Raj Ranga Reddy East (Hyd) Division, ZP Buildings, Khairtabad, Hyderabad-500 004. 5 The Superintending Engineer Panchyat Raj Nalgonda, H.No.7-8-126/A, Srinagar Colony, Panagal Road, Nalgonda Dist. 508 001. 6 The Mandal Parishad DEvelopment Officer Mandal Parishad Moinabad Mandal, R.R. Dist.507 331. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Registrar Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad. 2 Ambareesh, O/o The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Mionabad Mandal, R.R. Dist. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an order, direction or a Writ particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal Dt:27.02.2001 in O.A.No.2127/1999 and to quash the same and to pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P.No.17918 of 2001 ORDER: (Per Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 27.02.2001 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2127 of 1999 whereunder and whereby the Tribunal set-aside the oral termination of the second respondent and directed the petitioners to reinstate and regularize the services of the second respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The second respondent was initially appointed in the year 1991 as Work Inspector on NMR basis under the control of the fourth petitioner. Presently, he is working under the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. There are vacancies of Tracer and Work Inspectors in the department and the second respondent who has passed ITI (Civil), is eligible for regularization of his services in any one of the existing vacancies. When the petitioners have not taken any steps for regularization, the second respondent approached the Tribunal by way of filing O.A.No.270 of 1997 for regularization of his services and the same was disposed of on 30.1.1997 directing the petitioners to examine the case of the second respondent for regularization and pass appropriate orders within a period of four months. As the petitioners did not comply with those orders, the second respondent approached this court by filing W.P.No.9617 of 1997 and the same was disposed of directing the second respondent to approach the Tribunal for necessary relief. In the meanwhile, the services of the second respondent were terminated on 20.04.1999. Thereafter, the second respondent filed O.A.No.2127 of 1999 before the Tribunal and the same was allowed directing the petitioners to reinstate and regularize the services of the second respondent as per the ratio laid down by this court in W.P.No.7175 of 1997 and batch by setting aside the oral termination. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 3. The learned Government Pleader for Services II appearing for the petitioners contended that as far as the direction of the Tribunal with regard to regularization of the services of the second respondent is concerned, it is impermissible in law. He further contended that the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3702 of 2006 has laid down a proposition that regularization of services of daily wagers should only be against the clear vacancies and as vacancies are not available in the department, the question of regularizing the services of the second respondent would not arise. 4. It is true that regularization of services of the daily wagers is only against the clear vacancy. The second respondent was working as Work Inspector on NMR basis since 1991 and he was orally terminated on 20.04.1999. It appears that the oral termination was effected without following the due process of law and it is contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As far as the direction of the Tribunal with regard to reinstatement of the second respondent into service is concerned, we are not disturbing the finding rendered by the Tribunal. Insofar as the direction of the Tribunal with regard to regularization of the services of the second respondent irrespective of vacancy is concerned, we are inclined to set-aside that portion of the order in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3702 of 2006. 5. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the authorities to reinstate the petitioner into service within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order of the Tribunal to the extent of directing the authorities to regularize the services of the second respondent irrespective of the vacancy, is set-aside. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J 01.04.2009 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RAGHU}