IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4707 of 2009 Between: V.Vijaya Kumar and 3 others. ..... PETITIONERS AND The CentralPower Distribution company Limited, Khairabtabad, Hyderabad and 3 others. .....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 a writ order or direction especially one in the nature of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in not considering petitioner’s cases for regularization though petitioner’s have been working for more than 10 years is as illegal, improper and issue a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s cases for the regular appointment as watchman or any other equivalent post by taking cognizance of petitioner’s service certificates. Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.A.PANKAJA Counsel for the Respondent No.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4707 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioners claim to be working as watchmen on contract basis in the respondents’ organization. They submitted representations to the Superintendent Engineer Operation Circle- third respondent for regularization of their services. Thereupon third respondent forwarded their representation to the Chief General Manager (HRD), APCPDCL-second respondent. Since the representation did not yield any fruitful result with regard to regularization of their services, they approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri P.R.Balaram Reddy, learned standing counsel for Central Power Distribution Company Limited, takes notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners claimed to have submitted representations to the second respondent and in turn the second respondent forwarded the same to the first respondent. The latest representation of the petitioners is dated 03-02-2009. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 03-02-2009 submitted by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the regulations in force. No costs. ___________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J Date: 06-03-2009 KLP