IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5605 of 2009 Between: Nanjelli S/o. Moulaji R/o. Ramaiah Bowli, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 APSRTC Rep. by VC & MD Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager APSRTC Mahabubnagar Region, Mahabubnagar Dist. 3 The Depot Manager APSRTC Kalwakurthy Depot, Mahabubnagar Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.GOVINDA RAJULU Counsel for the Respondents:MR. V.PADMANABHA RAO FOR SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner in the post of Conductor, as illegal and arbitrary. In the averments contained in the affidavit, the petitioner has not pleaded that the respondents have framed any scheme for regularization. Ordinarily, a temporary or ad hoc employee or a casual labourer is not entitled to seek regularization, because such a plea runs counter to the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In State of Karnataka v. V.Umadevi (3)[1], the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court inter alia held as under: “Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. The High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because an employee had continued under cover of an order of the court, which we have described as “litigious employment” in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since, after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden of paying an employee who is really not required. The courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates.” This view of the Supreme Court is followed by it’s two-Judge Bench in Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others[2]. Following the law laid down by the Supreme Court as above, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of regularization. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.7331 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th APRIL, 2009. kvni [1] (2006) 4 SCC 1 [2] (2008) 10 SCC 1