THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITIN No.7232 of 2001 ORDER: The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to declare the action of the respondents, in not regularising the services of the petitioner, as arbitrary and discriminatory and to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner in the post held by him with effect from the date of his initial appointment in the respondent University. The petitioner was initially appointed as a driver in the Rural Development and Appropriate Technologies department of the S.V. University College of Engineering, Tirupathi. He claims to have joined duty on 10.02.1991, and to have worked as a driver till 16.06.1993. Thereafter, he was appointed as an NMR cleaner vide proceedings dated 05.10.1993, and was posted to S.V. University College of Engineering. He continued to work thereat till 10.07.1995. Subsequently from 11.07.1995 onwards, his services were utilized as a driver in the Center for Rural Development and Appropriate Technologies under the control of the 2nd respondent. Sri V. Jagapathi, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner is continuing in service as a driver even as on date. Learned Counsel would fairly state that, while the petitioner may not be entitled for regularization in terms of G.O.Ms. No.212 dated 22.04.1994 in as much as the post in which the petitioner was working is not a regular sanctioned post, he is nonetheless entitled to be continued in the service of the respondents, and it would suffice if this Court were to make the interim order, passed as early as on 17.04.2001, as the final order in the Writ Petition. On the other hand, Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel for the S.V. University, while expressing his ignorance as to whether or not the petitioner is being continued in service as on date, would submit that accepting the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner would require the respondent University to continue the petitioner in service even if the University no longer requires him to be so continued. Since Sri V. Jagapathi, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, does not press for the relief of regularization of his services, I consider it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the respondents, in case the petitioner is continuing in service as on date, to continue him in service as long as the petitioner’s services are required. In case the respondents choose to terminate his services, they shall do so only after putting the petitioner on notice, giving him an opportunity of being heard, and after passing an order, thereafter, in accordance with law. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date: 09.12.2010 MRKR