IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 24484 of 2009 Between: M.Sreenivasulu ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of A.P., Rep.by its Principal Secretary Revenue (Endowments) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 24484 OF 2009 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the alleged inaction on the part of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in implementing the order of the 1st respondent-Government of A.P. vide Memo dated 15.07.2008 as arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent-Devasthanam. The Memo dated 15.07.2008 shows that the writ petitioner preferred an Appeal under Section 93 of Andhra Pradesh Endowments Act, 1987 against the 2nd respondent’s order dated 02.01.2007, rejecting the request of the petitioner for regularization of his services and after hearing both the parties the 1st respondent passed an order as under: “Government after hearing the case, felt that it is appropriate to consider this case in the light of the similar cases, if any. The Government have therefore hereby direct the Commissioner, Endowments Department to consider the case in the light of similar cases that were considered earlier and in which orders were issued if any.” Though it is not disputed before this Court that the above order is subsisting as on today, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent vehemently contended that since the petitioner is absconding from his services from 25.10.2007, the question of regularization of his services does not arise. As could be seen, the direction by the 1st respondent was only to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the similar cases if any. In the circumstances it is always open to the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders following due process of law and it is not necessary for this Court to express any opinion on merits. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law in terms of the 1st respondent’s Memo dated 15.07.2008 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 16.11.2009 Ivd