IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9236 OF 2000 Between: P. Hanumantha Rao son of Sambaiah, Pothinavaripalem Grampanchayat, Karmenedu Mandal, Prakasam Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Secretary , Panchayat Raj and Rural Development The Govt of AP Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development , 6th floor, Insuracne Buildings, Tilak Road, Hyderabad 3 The Dist. Collector (Panchayat Wing) Ongole. 4 The District Panchayat Officer, Ongole 5 The Sarpanch,Pothinavaripalem Grampanchayat, Karamchedu Mandal, Prakasam Dist .....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 more in the nature of Certiorari calling for records relating to OA.No.1249/93 dt. 8/02/2000 passed by the A.P.Adiminstrative Tribunal and set aside the same by holding it as unjust, without any basis and contrary to the Art. 14 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner as Clerical Attender Keeping in view of the services rendered by him and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in the same place with all consequential benefits and fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.M.RATNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice P. Swaroop Reddy) This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner P. Hanumantha Rao against the order dated 08-02-2000 in O.A. No.1249 of 1993 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal. 2. The petitioner filed the O.A. contending that he was working as N.M.R. Clerical Attender in the office of respondent No.5 i.e., Pothinavaripalem Grampanchayat, Karamchedu Mandal, Prakasham District and respondent No.3, the District Collector, Ongole, vide orders dated 23-01-1993 cancelled his appointment as Clerical Attender. Questioning the same, he filed the impugned O.A. No.1249 of 1993 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents to regularize his services in the post of N.M.R. Clerical Attender. On 29-03-1993, the Tribunal while admitting the O.A passed the following interim order. “The applicant was appointed by proceedings dated 13-10-1987 as N.M.R on payment of daily wages. The said appointment was terminated by proceedings dated 23-01-1993 saying that the sanction was expired and expenditure on the staff was more than 30%. The grievance of the applicant is that there is need to engaged the services on N.M.R. Pending further orders, the respondents are directed that in the event of necessity of engaging the services of the N.M.R. the services of the applicant be engaged before calling any fresh N.M.Rs in the Gram Panchayat. This exparte interim order is issued initially for a period of 14 days.” 3. Pursuant to the above interim order, the petitioner continued in the post of N.M.R. Clerical Attender and discharging duties in the office of respondent No.5 and has completed more than 12 years of service as N.M.R. Clerical Attender in the Gram Panchayat Office, as such, he was entitled for regularization of his services in that post as per the guidelines framed in G.O. Ms. No.212 dated 22-04-1994 to the effect that who have completed minimum five years of continuous service as on 23-11-1993 are entitled for regularization in the post in which they have rendered service. Finally, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. on 08-02-2000 without properly considering the case of the petitioner that respondent No.3 without issuing any notice to him, terminated his services in spite of the fact that he has rendered more than 12 years of service and his case is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in A. Manjula Bhashini & Others v. The Managing Director, A.P. Women’s Cooperative Finance Corporation Ltd. & another[1] (which is yet to be reported in the Supreme Court Cases). Challenging the order of the Tribunal, this Writ Petition is filed. 4. Now the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has served as N.M.R. Clerical Attender in the office of respondent No.5 for more than 12 years, as such, he has to be absorbed in permanent post in view of G.O. Ms. No.212 dated 22-04-1994 and the decision of the Supreme Court referred supra. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that there is no post called clerical attender, as such, there is no question of the petitioner being appointed as clerical attender and continuing in such a post. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner admits that there is no post of clerical attender, but the petitioner was appointed as an attender and as he is a literate, he was assisting in discharge of clerical duties also, as such, he was being called as clerical attender and therefore his case may be considered at least for the post of attender for regularisation purpose. 7. There appears to be no dispute about the petitioner working in the office of respondent No.5 for more than 12 years as the order dated 13- 10-1987 of the District Collector, Ongole issued in letter bearing L.Div.No.4525/87/A3 (Pts) shows that the petitioner was appointed as clerical attender on N.M.R. basis at Rs.12/- per day for a period of one year. Apparently, the said post of the petitioner continued and he was working till his dismissal in 1993. 8. Considering these circumstances, though no positive direction can be given to the respondents to appoint the petitioner, we order that the petitioner shall make an application to the authoritiy concerned for appointment as attender in the office of respondent No.5 and in case of availability of any such existing vacancy, his case shall be considered for the same. 9. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ V. ESWARAIAH,J July 30, 2009. ____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY,J PV/IVD [1] Latest Judgments (http://latest.sccsupport.com/judgment)