IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22681 OF 1999 Between: Mohd. Saleem, S/o. Haneef, Ex.NMR-Watcher in Plantation of Forest Wing, MCH, R/o. Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Rep. by its Registrar, Purana Haveli, Hyderabad. 2. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 3. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad. 4. The Chief Horticulturist, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a writ order or direction particularly in the nature of writ of Certiorari and call for records relating to and connected with Judgement, dated 26.10.1998 in O.A.2481/96 and quash or set-aside the same and to issue a consequential direction to the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner with effect from the date of his appointment with all benefits and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. R.A. RAJENDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.: The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the petitioner was not appointed by the competent authority i.e. the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, but he was appointed as NMR-Watcher by the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Wing of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, who is not a competent authority to appoint the NMRs. Further, the services of the petitioner was, admittedly, terminated on 29-02-1992 itself and therefore he was not on the roles of NMR as on the cut off date 25-11-1993 as per G.O. Ms. No.212 dated 22-04-1994. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to regularization of his services, as he was, admittedly, not in service from 1992 till date. The O.A. filed by the petitioner and others was dismissed. There is no interim order in this writ petition and the petitioner was not continuing in the service. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J June 18, 2009. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J PV/DS