THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4601 of 2005 ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-A.P. State Housing Corporation (for brevity “the Corporation”). 2. This writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.A8(1)(2621)/95, dated 3.11.2003, issued by the 1st respondent in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for re-appointment as Section Writer as unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary and consequently sought a direction to the respondents to re-appoint her as Section Writer or in any other suitable post in the office of the 3rd respondent Corporation. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that she was initially appointed as a Section Writer in the 3rd respondent Corporation with effect from 6.7.1992. As she suffered serious illness, she could not attend to the duty from 30.11.1992 and the same was intimated to the 3rd respondent. After recovery from the ill-health, when she made a representation dated 10.10.1994 along with a medical certificate requesting take her into service as Section Writer, the 3rd respondent has not considered her request for re-appointment and issued a Memo dated 3.1.1995 informing the petitioner that there is a ban on recruitment of daily wage workers. It is the grievance of the petitioner that inspite of the earlier orders obtained by her in W.P.No.5776 of 1995, dated 26.6.2003, her case was not considered illegally and through the impugned order, dated 3.11.2003, the 1st respondent rejected her case for regularization of her services, while her juniors are being continued. Hence the present writ petition. 4. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents Corporation. In the counter affidavit, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner worked as N.M.R. on daily wages purely on temporary basis in the respondent Corporation in Kadapa District from 6.7.1992 to 30.11.1992 and she was absented to duty for 8 ½ days during the said period. It is also stated that the petitioner worked for 139 ½ days, thereafter she did not turn up to duty from 1.12.1992 onwards without any intimation to the authorities concerned and, as such, her name was removed from the rolls of the Corporation. It is also stated that subsequently after a gap of nearly 2 years, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 10.10.1994 requesting to re- appoint her. However, in view of the provisions under Andhra Pradesh (Regularisation of appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 (Act No.2 of 1994), imposing ban on the appointments, the petitioner could not be re-appointed and the same was intimated to her. Further, referring to the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.No.5776 of 1995, dated 26.6.2003, it is stated that since the petitioner was not in service continuously for more than five years and since the petitioner was not in service as on 25.11.1993, she is not entitled for the benefit of regularization of her services as per G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.4.1994. With regard to the claim of the petitioner that several of her juniors are being continued in service, it is stated that as they were continuously working from the date of their initial appointment, they are being continued by paying minimum wages. 5. I have perused the judgment, dated 26.6.2003, rendered by this Court in the earlier W.P.No.5776 of 1995. The said writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.12145 of 1996, dated 10.1.2003. In the orders referred to above, this Court merely directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of her services. Inasmuch as the petitioner is not in the service of the respondents Corporation from 29.11.1992, she is not entitled for regularization of her services in terms of the orders issued by the Government in Act No.2 of 1994. 6. Even with regard to the claim of the petitioner for reappointment, though the petitioner worked as N.M.R. on daily wage basis from 6.7.1992 to 30.11.1992, on her own she left the services of the respondents Corporation for about two years. Therefore, her name was removed from the rolls of the respondents Corporation. Therefore, in view of the time gap and also in view of the provisions of Act No.2 of 1994, as a mater of right, the petitioner cannot claim any relief for re-appointment as Section Writer. 7. For the foregoing, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner and also in not reappointing the petitioner, inasmuch as, any such action would amount to violation of the provisions of Act No.2 of 1994. 8. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY 23.06.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4601 of 2005 23.06.2010 (Msr)