IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 26184 of 1999 Between: 1. Y.surrender Reddy S/O Y.Ranga Reddy aged 30 yearsR/o Warangal 2. N.Haribabu s/o Thirupathi Rao, age 34 years,R/o Karimnagar. 3. V.Srinivas Rao, s/o Veeraiah, aged 30 years, R/oWarangal. 4. K.Saidi Reddy S/o Ram Reddy, aged 39 years, R/o Nalgonda. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1. A.P.State Cooperative Rural Irrigation CorporationLtd. HACA Bhavan, Opp.Public Gardens, Hyderabad Rep.by Managing Director. 2. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies, A.P. Gruhakalpa, Hyderabad Rep.by Commissioner. 3. Govt.of Andhra Pradesh (Agriculture and Cooperation) Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or directions with a direction to the respondents to regularize the petitioners as per the posts sanctioned by 2nd respondent with effect from such date of sanctioning with all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.V.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.P.R.BALARAMI REDDY Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3: G.P. for Cooperation. The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri V.Srinivas, Learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.R.Balaram Reddy, learned standing counsel on behalf of the Corporation-respondentNo.1 and also Government Pleader for Cooperation on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. Though, the Writ Petition has been filed on behalf of the four petitioners, however, it is now represented that since the petitioners 2 and 3 have already left the service of Respondent No.1 Corporation, the Writ Petition to the extent of petitioners 2 and 3 stands dismissed. Further, during the course of arguments, it is pointed out that the petitioner No.4 has filed Writ Petition independently in W.P.No.7145 of 2001, virtually for the self same relief and by virtue of the disposal of the Writ Petition by order dated 17th April, 2001, his case was considered for the purpose of regularization. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioner No.1 virtually stands on the same footing as that of petitioner No.4. In the circumstances and having heard the respective submissions made by both sides, in the interest of justice it would be suffice to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner No.1 case also as well in the same lines as that of 4th petitioner and pass appropriate orders with regard to the regularization of the services, as per the posts sanctioned by second respondent with effect from the date of sanction with all the consequential benefits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No order as to costs.. ____________ 15-03-2005 kvrm To 1. The Managing Director, A.P.State Cooperative Rural Irrigation Corporation Ltd.HACA Bhavan, Opp.Public Gardens, Hyderabad 2. The Commissioner,The Registrar of Cooperative Societies, A.P. Gruhakalpa, Hyderabad. 3. The Principal Secretary, Govt.of Andhra Pradesh (Agriculture and Cooperation), Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4. 2 CCs to GP for Cooperation, High Court Building, Hyderabad.(O.U.T) 5. 2 Cdcopies.