IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1122 OF 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 06/11/2008 in WPMP No. 35271 of 2007 and WVMP No. 2468 of 2008 in WP NO : 26973 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The APCPDCL, rep., by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Red Hills, Hyderabad and two others ... APPELLANTS AND G. Brahmaiah ... RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellants: Sri P.R. Balarami Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Sri C. Arvind for Sri P. Kishore Rao The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by an interim order, this appeal has been filed. By virtue of the interim order, the appellants have been directed to consider the claim of the respondent – writ petitioner for regularisation of his service against a regular and permanent vacancy by computing his service from 01-01-1969 as continuous, pending Writ Petition No. 26973 of 2007. 2. The learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that by virtue of the impugned interim order, practically the petition has been allowed because the appellants have been directed to regularise the services of the writ petitioner. 3. In our opinion, the belief of the appellants is not correct because they have been directed to consider the claim of the writ petitioner, but there is no direction to regularise his services. 4. It is always open to the appellant – employer to consider the case of the writ petitioner and if according to it, the writ petitioner – employee is not eligible for regularisation of his services, by a reasoned order, his request can be turned down. 5. In view of the above fact, in our opinion, the order passed by the learned single Judge is not such which would constrain the appellants to regularise the services of the writ petitioner. 6. Needless to say that after considering the case of the writ petitioner, if the appellant – employer is not in favour of regularisation, the appellant – employer shall record the reasons for doing so. 7. In view of the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs. 8. As a sequel to disposal of the appeal, WAMP No. 2314 of 2009 filed by the appellants for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15th September, 2009 ks