IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 24689 of 2008 Between: S.Siva Shankar, S/o.Mallaiah R/o.H.No.41/513-4, Kothapeta, Kurnool, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Registrar (Admn.), Hyderabad. 2 The Hon'ble District Judge, District & Sessions Court, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 3 The Hon'ble II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not regularizing the Petitioner's services to the post of Attender/Masalchi in pursuance of the Circular Rc.No.2708/2003-D(5), dated 26.7.2004 is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to consider the case of the Petitioner for appointment to the post of Attender/Masalchi in pursuance of the Circular Rc.No.2708/2003-D(5), dated 26.7.2004 and pass such further other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: (SC FOR APHC) D.V.SITHARAM MURTHY The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as part-time masalchi by the District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool vide order No.Dis.No.2835/Estt/98, dated 10.4.1998. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action in not regularizing the petitioner’s service in the post of Attender/Masalchi in pursuance of the Circular Rc.No.2708/2003-D(5), dated 26.7.2004 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Attender/Masalchi. It is stated that during the pendency of the writ petition a fresh notification was issued for making appointment to the posts of Attender, Process Server etc., pursuant to which the petitioner made an application and he was also interviewed on 24.1.2009. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not pressing for disposal of the writ petition on merits, but he submits that the case of the petitioner may be considered as he was also interviewed pursuant to the notification dated 17.8.2006. In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment pursuant to the selection process initiated under the notification dated 17.8.2006. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 1.4.2009 kpr