IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1672 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 13/11/2008 in WP NO : 24377 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 The APSRTC.,rep.Chairman cum Managing Director Musheerabad, Hyderabad 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC., Vijayawada Krishna district 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC,Governorpet-I, Depot. ..... APPELLANTS AND 1 Kodali Raju S/o.Hanumaiah Kesanapalli post, Gannavaram Mandal Krishna District 2 Kodali Nageswara Rao S/o.Hanumaiah Kesanapalli post, Gannavaram Mandal Krishna District 3 Kagithala Sambasiva Rao S/o.Subba Rao R/o.Davajigudem, Gannavaram Mandal Krishna District 4 Pullapaka Prakasam S/o.David R/o.Bollanapalli Gannavaram Mandal Krishna District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants : C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondents : MR.M.PITCHAIAH The Court made the following : JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Anil R.Dave, CJ) In this appeal, impugned order dated 13th November 2008 passed in W.V.M.P.No.1261 of 2008 in W.P.M.P.No.31741 of 2007 in Writ Petition No.24377 of 2007 has been challenged. The facts giving rise to the present litigation in a nutshell are as under; The original petitioners had approached this Court by filing writ petition No.24377 of 2007, praying that their services be regularized. In the said writ petition, the following interim order dated 19th November 2007 was passed in W.P.M.P.No.31741 of 2007 : “There shall be interim direction to the respondents to consider regularization of the services of the petitioners, on par with those who were appointed along with them, and pass appropriate orders, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and communicate the same to the petitioners.” In pursuance of the aforesaid interim order passed by this Court, the original respondents–employer had passed an order dated 12th March 2008. By virtue of the said speaking order, the employer had stated that the claim of regularization made by the original petitioners was rejected. The said order dated 12th March 2008 is a reasoned order and all reasons for which it was not possible to regularize the services of the original petitioners, have been incorporated in the order. Thereafter, W.V.M.P.No.1261 of 2008 in W.P.M.P.No.31741 of 2007 had been notified for hearing, and after hearing the concerned advocates, the learned single Judge has passed the following order on 13th November 2008; “In the facts and circumstances of the case, the interim order granted on 19.11.2007 is made absolute and the vacate stay petition is dismissed.” The aforesaid order has been challenged in this appeal. In our opinion, this appeal is absolutely futile for the reason that by virtue of the impugned order dated 13th November 2008, the learned single Judge has virtually confirmed the order dated 19th November 2007, whereby the employer was directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization. In pursuance of the said order, in fact, the employer has already passed an order dated 12th March 2008. Thus, the earlier interim order dated 19th November 2007 had already been complied with when order dated 12th March 2008 had been passed. In our opinion, in view of compliance of the order dated 19th November 2007, nothing further is required to be done by the employer. It is pertinent to note that the order dated 12th March 2008 is a reasoned order whereby the employer has given the reasons for which regularization of the original petitioners is not possible. In view of the aforesaid set of circumstances, in our opinion, order dated 19th November 2007 has been duly complied with by passing order dated 12th March 2008. By virtue of order dated 13th November 2008, earlier direction given on 19th November 2007 has been simply confirmed. In our opinion, nothing further was required to be done as order dated 12th March 2008 had already been passed by the employer. In the circumstances, this appeal, which has been filed by the employer, would not survive for the reason that nothing further is required to be done by the employer in pursuance of the order dated 13th November 2008. The appeal, therefore, stands disposed of. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 15th December 2008 ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J ajr