THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR W.P.No.24343 of 2011 Date: 06.09.2011 Between: P. Aparna and 6 others … Writ Petitioners AND The Govt. of A.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, Secretatariat, Hyderabad and 3 others … Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Writ Petition No.24343 of 2011 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.G. Shankar) The writ petitioners seek for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 29.06.2011 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’ for short) in O.A.No.8651 of 2010. The seven writ petitioners are Drug Inspectors. They are qualified to be appointed as regular Drug Inspectors in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.339 Health, Medical and Family Welfare (L2) Department, dated 28.08.1996 (‘G.O.Ms.No.339’, for short). Five of them passed post-graduate degree in Pharmacy. Two of them are pharmacy graduates. They underwent training. However, their appointment was on contract basis only. It was initially for a period of two years. The appointments were extended for a further period of one year, which would expire on 10.09.2011. 2. The petitioners made a representation to the Ministry of Health, Medical and Family Welfare to absorb them as Drug Inspectors on regular basis. Despite a favourable report from the Principal Secretary, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department on the representation of the petitioners, the second respondent (Director General, Drugs and Copy Right) rejected their representation on the ground that absorbing the petitioners on regular basis would be against G.O.Ms.No.339. Aggrieved by the same, they preferred application before the Tribunal. Through the impugned order dated 29.06.201, the Tribunal dismissed the application of the petitioners. Hence, the writ petition. 3. It may be noticed that the petitioners were appointed on contract basis. Rule 9 (b) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules envisages that a person appointed on contract basis or on agreement should not be regarded as a member of service and would not be entitled to any preferential right of appointment. Where the petitioners admittedly were appointed on temporary basis, whether they underwent training or not is irrelevant. Further, Section 21 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 adumbrates that training is mandatory. Consequently, mere undergoing training does not confer any right upon the petitioners for being continued as regular Drug Inspectors. 4. Added to it, Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 (‘Act 2 of 1994’, for short) prohibits appointments except under the provisions of Act 2 of 1994. Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed not in accordance with Act 2 of 1994. On the other hand, their appointments were on temporary basis. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon Union Public Service Commission v. Girish Jayantilal Vaghela[1] before the Tribunal. The Tribunal distinguished Girish Jayanthilal from the facts of the present case and held that the Supreme Court had already observed that a person appointed to a post on contract basis for a short period de hors the statutory rules and without complying Article 16 of the Indian Constitution could not be treated as a government servant and would not be entitled to the statutory provision of relaxation of age limit for government service. In the present case, the petitioners are not seeking for the age relaxation. They are seeking for the regularization of their appointment. Where the petitioners admittedly were appointed on contract basis, we are afraid that the services of the petitioners cannot be regularized. The Tribunal is correct in concluding that the petitioners are not entitled to seek for the regularization of their services. There is nothing to indicate that the Tribunal erred in dismissing O.A.No.8651 of 2010. There are no merits in this writ petition. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ___________________ (K.G. SHANKAR, J) Date: 06.09.2011 Isn/Vs [1] (2006) 2 SCC 482