THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.5001 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was working as Work Inspector in the office of the Deputy Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Kurnool, in the year 1992, on temporary basis. At that time, Sri Bramarambika Mallikarjuna Swamyvari Devasthanam, Srisailam, the 3rd respondent, proposed to construct a water reservoir with the capacity of two lakh gallons. The work was entrusted to the Nandyal Division of Public Health. For the execution of this work, the Deputy Executive Engineer (FAC), Nandyal, engaged the services of the petitioner and four others for supervising the work. The construction was completed in the year 1999, and the water tank was handed over to the Devasthanam. It is stated that with a view to ensure proper maintenance of the water scheme, the Devasthanam has chosen to retain employees of the Public Heath Department that were associated with the construction of the water tank. The petitioner was being continued as Pump Operator. He is only said to be possessing Diploma in Civil Engineering and he belongs to Scheduled Caste. The 3rd respondent is sated to have addressed a letter, dated 16.03.2003, to the Commissioner of Endowments, the 2nd respondent herein, recommending that the services of the petitioner be regularized in the Devasthanam. Complaining that no action has been taken thereon, the petitioner filed W.P.No.1754 of 2004. The writ petition was disposed of on 07.09.2006, directing the 2nd respondent to consider the case of the petitioner. Acting on the same, the Government in Revenue (Endowments) Department, the 1st respondent, addressed a letter, dated 15.07.2008, to the 2nd respondent to take necessary action in the matter. The petitioner filed W.P.No.24484 of 2009 alleging that the 2nd respondent did not take any steps. The writ petition was disposed of on 16.11.2009, directing the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders on the memo dated 15.07.2008 issued by the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent passed an order dated 02.01.2010 rejecting the case of the petitioner. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that the only ground, on which his case was rejected, is that, he is not attending the duties from 26.10.2007 and that the same is factually incorrect. On behalf of the respondents, the 2nd respondent filed counter- affidavit. It is stated that the petitioner worked on contract basis till 25.10.2007 and thereafter, he has absconded from duty without obtaining permission. Reference is made to various orders that have passed by this Court and the Government that have a bearing upon the issue. The petitioner filed a reply contradicting the version of the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Endowments and learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent. The petitioner no doubt was working with the Public Health Department, before he was associated with the work of the construction of water tank for the 3rd respondent. However, he was not a regular employee. After completion of the construction, the 3rd respondent continued the petitioner on contract basis. The Devasthanam was also recommended that the petitioner may be appointed on regular basis. This Court issued directions in W.P.No.1754 of 2004 for consideration of the case, and on similar lines, the 1st respondent also addressed a letter, dated 15.07.2008, to the 2nd respondent to consider the case of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another writ petition, being W.P.No.24484 of 2009. It is in this background that the 2nd respondent considered the case and passed the impugned order. There are instances of the temporary and daily wage employees being appointed on regular basis. In such cases, it is only when the employee is in service, that orders are passed subject to availability of clear vacancy and fulfillment of the condition as to length, or ad hoc or temporary service. If the employee is not attending the duties or is not in service, the question of regularization does not arise. The 2nd respondent clearly stated in his order that the petitioner has absconded from duties, from 26.10.2007 onwards. While attempting to contradict this statement, the petitioner contends that he is very much resident of Srisailam township and that his name finds place in the electoral rolls. It makes little difference, whether the petitioner is resident of Srisailam, or any other place, as long as he did not attend the duties. He is not able to state that he has attended the duty on any day subsequent to 26.10.2007. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order suffers from any illegality, or irregularity. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.15.12.2010. GJ