IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Appeal No.217 of 2003 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 17/01/2001 in Writ Petition No.22293 of 2002 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1. The Deputy Executive Engineer, A.P. State Housing Corporation, Tenali, Tenali Division, Guntur District. 2. The District Manager, A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., Guntur District, Guntur. 3. The Managing Director, A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. ... APPELLANTS AND K.V. Ramana S/o. Basavapunnaiah, Age: about 38 years, working as Godown Watchman, A.P. State Housing Corporation, Tenali, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: MR.K. MOHANRAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORAL JUDGMENT: (per Shri Anil R. Dave, Hon’ble the Chief Justice) 1. Being aggrieved by an order dated 29.4.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.18706 of 1995, this appeal has been filed by the employer – original respondents. 2. By virtue of the impugned order, appellant No.1 – original respondent No.1 has been directed to regularise the services of the respondent – original petitioner in accordance with the policy laid down by the State of Andhra Pradesh in its G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance & Planing (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 22.4.1994. 3. The learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that at present there is no sanctioned post to which the respondent can be accommodated and, therefore, the appellants are aggrieved by the impugned order. 4. Needless to say that there is no direction to the appellants – employer to regularise the services of the respondent – original petitioner in the absence of a sanctioned post, as provided in G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.4.1994. 5. In our opinion, in the absence of any mandatory direction given to appellant No.1 to regularise the services of the respondent, it is not obligatory on the part of appellant No.1 to regularise the services of the respondent – original petitioner till there is a sanctioned post to which the respondent can be regularised. 6. We do not see any illegality in the impugned order and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ September 08, 2009 C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J svs ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {VSMI}