IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9158 of 2009 Between: M. Venu Gopal S/o. M. Jagannatham O/o. The Secretary, DPP, TTD, Tirupathi, R/o. Pathiputtor Village and Post, VAdamalapet Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Tirupathi. 2 The Secretary, DPP, TTD, Tirupathi. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.AGASTYA SHARMA Counsel for the Respondents:MR.P.HARINATHA GUPTHA(SC FOR TTD) ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner in the office of respondent No.2 in one of the 18 existing vacancies of the posts of Attenders. Heard Sri S.Agasthya Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In his affidavit, the petitioner averred that he was appointed as daily wage Attender on contract basis on 06.11.2006 by respondent No.2. He is claiming regularization by appointing him in one of the 18 vacant posts of Attenders available in respondent No.2 organisation. Neither in the affidavit the petitioner has pleaded the basis for his claim for regularization nor at the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner supported the claim of the petitioner with reference to any legal provision, under which, the petitioner is entitled to seek the relief of regularization. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that either the service rules governing the respondents or the schemes framed by them provide for such regularization. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. V.Uma Devi[1] held that a temporary, ad hoc or contract employee has no right to seek regularization or absorption into regular vacancies without going through the regular selection process and the High Courts cannot issue directions for such regularization. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 43 of the said judgment hereunder: “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 the two-Judge Bench in Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others[2]. In view of the settled legal position as above, the petitioner failed to make out any case for grant of relief claimed by him in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.11981 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th APRIL, 2009. kvni [1] (2006) 4 SCC 1 [2] (2008) 10 SCC 1