IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 34078 of 1998 Between: 1 V.Geeta Rani, D/o.V.Rameshwar, R/o.H.No. Srivani Apartments Flat No.8, Vijayapuri, Tranka, Secunderabad. 2 R.Sathyanarayana, S/o.R.Shankeraiah, Semstha, Hyderabad, R/o.17-7-788. Brahmanwadi, Yakuthpura, Hyderabad. 3 T.Srinivas , S/o.T.Mallaiah, Sankashema Samstha, Hyderabad. R/o.h.No.TRT 312, Vidyanagar Colony, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Managing Director, A P Toddy Tappers Co-Operative finance Corporation Limited 3-5-587, Vithal Wadi, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. 2 Government of A.P. Rep.by Principal Secretary, Revenue (Excise II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.SATISH DESHPANDEY Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners as Junior Assistants and Attenders respectively in respondent No.1- Coroporation with effect from the date of their initial appointment with all consequential benefits in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22-04-1994. Heard Sri Satish Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioners. No one appeared for the respondents. Perused the record. Petitioner No.1 was originally appointed as Record Assistant and later as Junior Assistant and petitioners 2 and 3 were appointed as Attenders in the Andhra Pradesh Toddy Tappers’ Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited-respondent No.1, which was constituted under G.O.Ms.No.1078 Revenue (Ex.II) Dept. dated 29-11-1991. The nomenclature of the said Corporation was subsequently changed as Andhra Pradesh Geeta Parisramika Sahakara Arthika Sankshema Samstha, Hyderabad. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they had been working for the period ranging between 5 to 7 years, by the time of the filing of this writ petition, their services have not been regularized in the posts in which they have been working. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is inter alia, averred that staffing pattern of respondent No.1- Corporation was sanctioned vide G.O.Ms.No.1078 dated 29-11-1991, which is as under- “I. Chairman 1 P.S. to Chairman 1 U.D.Steno 1 Driver 1 Attenders 2 II Managing Director 1 P.S to Managing Director 1 U.D Steno 1 Driver 1 Attenders 2 III General Manager 1 Attender 1 Driver 1 IV Desk Officers 3 U.D.Stenos 3 Typist-cum-Assistants 3 Attenders 3” It is further averred that the then Managing Director of respondent No.1-Corporation irregularly appointed the petitioners and some other persons contrary to the staffing pattern and in excess of the sanctioned posts, without following the mandatory procedure of seeking sponsoring of the candidates from the Employment Exchange and rule of reservation. The claim of the petitioners that they are entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22-04-1994 has been denied on the ground that the petitioners have completed less than one year four months of service as on 25-11-1993, which is the cut off date, by which the persons seeking regularization should have put in five years of service under the said G.O. The respondents, however, admitted that respondent No.1 wrote a letter to the State Government requesting for relaxation of service rules in favour of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners made a fervent appeal to the Court to consider the petitioners’ case sympathetically as they have put in long years of standing and that they will be thrown to streets if their services are terminated without regularization. As regards the claim of the petitioners for regularization under G.O.Ms.No.212, even if the contention of putting in five years of service as on 25-11-1993 is not insisted upon, still the petitioners will not qualify for regularization under the said G.O., because Condition No.5 of the said G.O stipulates “absorption shall be against clear vacancies of posts considered necessary to be continued as per work load excluding the vacancies already notified through the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission/District Selection Committee” In the instant case, it is not disputed that there are no sanctioned vacancies against which the petitioners can be adjusted. Therefore, G.O.Ms.No.212 will not be of any help to the petitioners. With regard to the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners to extend sympathy, I am afraid, a case of this nature cannot be decided on mere sympathies, sans law. In Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi[1], a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court while rejecting such a request held that it is erroneous for the Courts to merely consider equity for the handful of people who have approached the Court with a claim while ignoring equity for the teaming millions seeking employment and a fair opportunity for competing for employment. The Supreme Court also cautioned that the Courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic/financial arrangement of the affairs of the State or its instrumentalities. This view of the Supreme Court is reiterated in the subsequent judgments in State of U.P vs. Deshraj[2] and Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. Ranjodh Singh[3]. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, it is not possible for this Court to direct the respondents to regularize the petitioners’ services. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. This order, however, does not preclude the respondents from pursuing with the Government for sanctioning of additional vacancies and providing a scheme for regularizing the petitioners’ services against the posts in which they are working. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 21st November, 2008 vrn [1] (2006) 4 SCC 1 [2] (2007) 1 SCC 257 [3] 2007 (2) SCC 491