IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.NO.8845 OF 2001 14-12-2010 Between:- S.Satyanarayana .. Petitioner And The Managing Director, A.P.Women’s Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited, Hyderabad. ..Respondent ORDER:- This writ petition is directed against the inaction of the respondent Corporation in not regularising the services of the writ petitioner and in orally terminating his services. 2. The writ petitioner claims that he was selected and appointed by a duly constituted selection committee in a regular selection for the post of Typewriting Instructor at the Vizianagaram Centre of the respondent Corporation in which post he was rendering services continuously firstly at Vizianagaram and then, at Visakhapatnam and later, at Nimmakuru. The Corporation was indulging in showing artificial breaks in service compelling the writ petitioner to file W.P.No.10536 of 1998 in which an interim direction was given by this Court on 07-04-1998 to pay the minimum time scale and not to give any artificial breaks. In the judgment in the writ petition on 23-07-1999, the respondent Corporation was directed to regularise the services of the writ petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22-04-1994. The Corporation rejected the request of the writ petitioner claiming the absence of any sanctioned post leading to his filing another writ petition in W.P.No.15527 of 2000 in which this Court again directed on 08-12-2000 to regularise the services without insisting on the existence of the sanctioned post and to pay the regular time scale attached to the post. A writ appeal by the Corporation was pending by the time of the writ petition and the writ petitioner had also exercised his option to work at the head office on the requisition of the Managing Director. Still, suddenly, he was orally informed not to attend the office from 01-05-2001 alleging termination of services and hence the writ petition. 3. The respondent Corporation contended that the appointment order dated 15-06-1991 clearly specifies the temporary appointment to be for one year liable for termination without assigning any reasons or giving any advance notice. The respondent claimed the writ petitioner to be working with breaks and stated that engagement of Instructors for conducting the trades/courses will be purely on temporary basis on payment of honorarium as per the norms of the funding agencies. The Corporation cannot be compelled to engage and avail the services of any Instructors, as there will not be continuity of trades/courses. The respondent Corporation stated that the writ petitioner’s claim was rejected as he did not complete minimum service of five years as on 25-11-1993 and as there was no sanctioned post. In Civil Appeal Nos.1959 to 1961 of 1998, the Supreme Court held on 21-09-2000 that if for lack of funds or as directed by the funding agencies, it becomes necessary to retrench any instructors, it would be done on the principle of ‘last come first go’. The Court allowed W.P.No.15527 of 2000 but the same was set aside by a Division Bench in W.A.No.714 of 2001 on 28-04-2001. Therefore, the Corporation stated that the writ petitioner is not entitled to any regularisation of services. 4. Sri Ch.Satish Kumar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri J.S.Raju, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation are heard. 5. The respondent Corporation filed a copy of the letter from the District Manager, Krishna to the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation dated 18-08-2002 informing that the services of the writ petitioner were utilized between 07-05-2001 to 31-07-2001 after which he did not work in the pranganam of the Corporation at Nimmakuru. 6. The point for consideration is: “Whether the writ petitioner is entitled for any positive direction for regularisation of his services?” 7. POINT:- The engagement of the writ petitioner with the Corporation since 15-06-1991 is not in dispute but the appointment order itself shows that the appointment was either for one year or till the completion of the course, whichever is earlier, purely temporarily with liability for termination at any time without any reason or advance notice. The other material papers filed by the writ petitioner do not indicate any change in the conditions of the service of the writ petitioner and it is true that in W.P.No.96 of 1998 and batch, a learned Judge of this Court, in the judgment dated 23-07-1999, directed consideration of the writ petitioners including the present writ petitioner for regularisation of their services in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22-04-1994 and also declared the entitlement of the writ petitioners for payment of wages on par with the regular employees. However, the counter affidavit of the Corporation referred to the ineligibility of the writ petitioner for such regularisation under G.O.Ms.No.212, which was accordingly communicated to the writ petitioner and further directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.1959 to 1961 of 1998 dated 21-09-2000 make the Instructors susceptible to retrenchment in the order of their juniority. Though the writ petitioner succeeded in W.P.No.15527 of 2000, the said judgment was set aside by the Division Bench in W.A.No.748 of 2001 dated 21-04-2001 and therefore, the said direction to regularise the services of the writ petitioner without reference to any sanctioned post ceased to operate. 8. In this writ petition, an interim direction was given on 27-04-2001 to continue the writ petitioner in service which was made absolute on 26-03-2002 but what had happened in reality was that the writ petitioner was engaged by the Corporation only upto 31-07-2001 after which the services were never engaged and he was never paid any remuneration. In the face of the said fact situation and a decision of the Division Bench in W.A.No.374 of 2001 dated 24-07-2001 about the requirement of a clear vacancy for regular absorption, the relief to be granted to the writ petitioner has to be moulded accordingly. The writ petitioner admittedly rendered services to the respondent Corporation between 1991 and 2001 in the prime of his life and might not be able to secure any alternative suitable employment at this distance of time. The Corporation itself has to therefore consider his appointment in any regular vacancy, if necessary, by relaxing the age qualification for any such post. Such an equitable direction is required in view of the prolonged litigation in which the writ petitioner is involved and the length of service he rendered to the Corporation. 9. Therefore, the respondent Corporation shall consider the appointment of the writ petitioner in accordance with rules in any regular suitable vacancy arising in respect of any post under it, if necessary, by relaxing the age qualification, if he is otherwise eligible and suitable to such post and the writ petition is ordered accordingly without costs. _____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD ,J 14th December 2010 AMD