IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6202 of 2009 Between: 1 Manohara, W/o. Bharath, C/o. U. Prabhakar Reddy, R/o. Plot No. 33/B, Central Bank Colony, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad - 74 2 C. Satish Kumar, s/o. C. Venkata Ram Reddy, C/o. U. Prabhakar Reddy, R/o. Plot No. 33/B, Central Bank Colony, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad - 74 3 T. Spandana, D/o. T. Balasubramanyam, C/o. U. Prabhakar Reddy, R/o. Plot No. 33/B, Central Bank Colony, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad - 74 4 K.V. Sagar Reddy, s/o. K. Narasimha Reddy (Late), C/o. U. Prabhakar Reddy, R/o. Plot No. 33/B, Central Bank Colony, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad - 74 5 J. Srinivas, s/o. J. Pullaiah, (Late), C/o. U. Prabhakar Reddy, R/o. Plot No. 33/B, Central Bank Colony, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad - 74 6 G. Suresh, S/o. G. Venkataramanaiah, C/o. U. Prabhakar Reddy, R/o. Plot No. 33/B, Central Bank Colony, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad - 74 7 M.R. Prasad Reddy, S/o. Eswar Reddy, C/o. U. Prabhakar Reddy, R/o. Plot No. 33/B, Central Bank Colony, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad - 74 8 U. Prabhakar Reddy, s/o. U. Linga Reddy (Late) C/o. U. Prabhakar Reddy, R/o. Plot No. 33/B, Central Bank Colony, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad - 74 ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporatation, Limited, VI Floor, Parisrama Bhavan, Basheera Bagh, Hyderbad - 4, Rep by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director 2 The Executive Director, Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure CorporatationLimited, VI Floor, Parishrama Bhavan, Basheerabagh, Hyderbad- 4. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.CHANDRAIAH SUNKARA Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.V.SIMHADRI The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside communication, dated 05.03.2009. The petitioners sought for a direction to the respondents to regularize their services. Heard Sri Chandraiah Sunkara, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.V.Simhadri, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. By notification, dated 09.12.2005, the respondents invited applications from the general public for appointment to the 8 posts of Assistant Zonal Managers (Engineering) on contract basis. It is stipulated in the said notification that initially, the appointments will be confined to one-year period with a provision to extend the tenure by two more years. In pursuance of the said notification, the petitioners applied and were selected. They were issued appointment orders and separate agreements were entered into between them and the respondents, initially for one year and the contracts were further extended by two more years. On the eve of expiry of the extended period of contracts, the Executive Director of respondent No.1 Corporation issued instructions to all the Chief General Managers/Zonal Managers concerned to relieve the petitioners on completion of their extended tenure of two years. This communication is questioned in this writ petition. At the hearing, Sri Chandraiah Sunkara, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents having appointed the petitioners as Assistant Zonal Managers on contract basis, are not justified in seeking to terminate their services. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab and others [1]. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the very notification itself contained the stipulation that the contract appointments are initially for one year and extendable by two more years. He further submitted that under the terms of the appointment orders and the agreements entered into with the petitioners, the respondents are entitled to terminate the services of the petitioners on the expiry of the tenure for which they were appointed. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties. The notification issued by the respondents clearly stipulates that the appointment is on contract basis for the initial period of one year with the provision to extend the same for two more years. The petitioners filed a copy of the appointment order, which is similar to all of them. Clauses 2 and 4 of the agreements entered into by the petitioners with the respondents are as follows. “2. You will be paid lumpsum amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) per month. You are not eligible for any other allowance such as DA, HRA, CCA etc. You are not eligible for facilities like LTC, Medical expenses, conveyance expenses etc. However, TA/DA is payable to you on par with the other employees of the Corporation of equivalent status for official travel outside your Head Quarters/place of work. 3. xxxx 4. The term of engagement is purely for a period of one year and may be extended at the sole discretion of the VC&MD of the Corporation, subject to your satisfactory discharge of the functions. In any case, the period of engagement shall not be more than (3) years.” (emphasis added) In the face of the unequivocal conditions subject to which the petitioners applied for and were appointed, it is not permissible for the petitioners to question their discontinuance at the end of the tenure. The petitioners did not have any legal right to insist for their continuance contrary to the agreements entered into by them with the respondents. The reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hargurpratap Singh (1 supra) by the learned counsel for the petitioners is wholly misplaced. In the said case, the employees were employed on ad hoc basis in several colleges in the State of Punjab and apprehending their termination, they filed writ petitions in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana seeking relief of regularization and minimum pay scale and their continuance till regular appointments are made. The High Court while rejecting all the reliefs, however, directed that the Government should follow its policy decision, dated 23.07.2001. In the appeal filed by the employees, the Supreme Court while holding that the course adopted by the High Court to displace one ad hoc arrangement by another ad hoc arrangement was not appropriate, further held that though the appellants were not entitled for regular appointment, they shall be continued with minimum pay scale till regular appointments are made. I do not find any relevance of the said judgment to the facts of the present case. The said judgment did not deal with a case of contract appointments. In any event, even in the absence of a contract, a person, who is not appointed against a sanctioned vacancy through a regular process of recruitment, is not entitled to claim either his continuance or regularization in view of the law declared by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi[2] and reiterated in a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others[3]. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and is accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.8111 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 26th MARCH, 2009. kvni [1] (2007) 13 SCC 292 [2] (2006) 4 SCC 1 [3] (2008) 10 SCC 1