IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 13433 of 2008 Between: Jagannadha Murali Mohan S/o.Isreal Pragathi bhavan, Ongole Town, Prakasam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary , Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 AP Schedule Caste Finance Corporation, rep.by its Managing Director, Hyderabad 3 The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole 4 Prakasam District SC Co-op.Society Limited, rep.by its Executive Director, Ongole, Prakasam District .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for regularizing his services though the posts are vacant and in spite of completion of continuous 11 years of unblemish service pursuant to the representations dated 15.5.2007 and 17.1.2008 as illegal, and arbitrary, discriminatory and consequently direct the respondents to regulrize the service of the petitioner in the existing vacancy and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon`ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.PALLENAGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner joined the service of the fourth respondent- society on contractual basis in the year 1997. The petitioner claims to have made a representation, dated 17.01.2008, with a prayer to regularize the services against the existing vacancies. His grievance is that no action has been taken thereon and he seeks appropriate directions. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent. It is not clear as to whether the petitioner is continuing in the service of the fourth respondent and the manner in which he has been inducted into service. Further, the petitioner is not able to state the provision or any order of the Government in relation to the regularization of service. Be that as it may, the application of the petitioner made to the fourth respondent cannot be kept pending indefinitely. If their stand is made clear, the petitioner would be able to work out his remedies before the appropriate forum. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the fourth respondent to pass orders on the representation, dated 17.01.2008, made by the petitioner, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:26.06.2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}