IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 20226 of 1999 Between: Shaik Nazeer Mohammad, S/o Dawood, O/o A.P. S.W.C., Narsaraopet II, R/o. Narsaraopet, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Managing Director, A.P. Stae Ware Housing Corporation, IInd Floor, Ware Housing Sadan, Near Gandhi Bhavan, Hyderabad. 2 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl.Secretary, Agriculture & Co-Operation (Mktg.I) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....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 to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo in SWC/E4/8376/98 dt.1- 9-99 issued by the 1st respondent in not regularising the services of the petitioner with effect from 1-9-87 on par with the Juniors is highly arbitrary, bad, illegal and discriminatory and direct the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner with effect from 1-9-87 on par with his juniors and pass such other order or orders as deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.PRABHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR AGRICULTURE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.20226 OF 1999 ORDER: The petitioner’s services were regularized as a Guard-cum-Peon in the services of the A.P. State Warehousing Corporation, Hyderabad, with effect from 01.04.1991 under the proceedings dated 30.12.1996. Thereafter, his regularization was given retrospective effect from 19.02.1990 along with others similarly situated under the proceedings dated 06.09.1997. His request for reckoning his regularization from 01.09.1987, on the ground that others had been granted regularization of services from that date, was turned down by the respondent Corporation by the proceedings dated 01.09.1999. This action is challenged in the present case. In its counter affidavit, the respondent Corporation contested the claim of the petitioner. It is stated that only the services of those Guards- cum-Peons who were appointed through the medium of the Employment Exchange and who had completed one year of service by 01.09.1987 were regularized with effect from that date. It is pointed out that the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis in January, 1985 and was continued in service with breaks till 1986. His services were terminated during April, 1986 and he was reappointed subsequently pursuant to Court orders. The impugned proceedings dated 01.09.1999 also demonstrate that the petitioner’s services were adhoc in nature and that he was appointed directly without the medium of the Employment Exchange. He was therefore informed that he could not be treated on par with those individuals whose services had been regularized with effect from 01.09.1987, who were appointed through the medium of the Employment Exchange and had completed one year of service as on 01.09.1987. In the light of the aforestated facts, the prayer of the petitioner that his regularization should be given retrospective effect from 01.09.1987 cannot be accepted. The Judgment of the Supreme Court in SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS v. UMA DEVI (3) AND OTHERS[1] clearly postulates that regularization of services cannot be directed once it is established the entry into service was not as per the prescribed procedure. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contested the stand taken by the respondent Corporation that those who had been granted regularization with effect from 01.09.1987 were appointed through the medium of the Employment Exchange. He relied upon the reply affidavit to substantiate his contention that some of the petitioner’s juniors, who were given such regularization, were appointed without being sponsored by the Employment Exchange. However, this Court cannot adjudicate such disputed questions of fact under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is therefore devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 13th March, 2009. VGSR [1] (2006) 4 SCC 1