IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 15969 of 2004 Between: 1. P. Raghunath, Hindu, S/o R.P. Rangappa, APSRTC, Ananthapur FRegion. 2. C. Rampullaiah, Hindu, S/o C. Obulesu, APSRTC, Ananthapur Region. 3. S. Somasekhar Reddy, S/o Ram Reddy, APSRTC, Ananthapur Region. ..... PETITIONERS AND The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Anantapur Region, at Anantapur. .....RESPONDENT 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 issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring that the action of the respondent in not regularising petitioners services as conductors as bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unreasonable and consequently direct the respondent to regularise the services of the petitioners immediately without giving any service break/disengagement Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Corporation in not regularizing the petitioners’ services as Conductors as bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust, and unreasonable and consequently direct the respondents to regularise their services immediately without giving any service break/ disengagement. The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed on daily wage basis as Conductors in pursuance of the notiﬁcation issued by the respondent Corporation. Their appointments were made through regular process of selection by conducting physical test and medical test and they have also undergone for training, which was given by the Corporation. Now the petitioners are being paid with Rs.123/- per day as daily wage. Their appointments were made in the year 1999 and they are continuing in service with artiﬁcial breaks. It is also their case that their appointments were made in Anantapur region and sending them to diﬀerent regions to work where their services are required and they have no objection for the same if their services are regularised. Though they have been working in the Corporation as Conductors since 1999 their services have not been regularised. Therefore, they ﬁled the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent Corporation issued notiﬁcation in the year 1999 inviting applications from the eligible candidates to the post of Conductors pursuant which the petitioners have made their applications and got selected after due veriﬁcation of their educational qualiﬁcations. The petitioners were interviewed and subsequently they were given appointment orders as Conductors on daily wage basis. He further submits that the petitioners joined in the Corporation with the fond hope that their services would be regularised. Though the petitioners are working in the Corporation since 1999 but by way of giving artiﬁcial breaks in their services, their services have not been regularised. It is also submitted that artiﬁcial breaks are giving only making the petitioners ineligible for getting the beneﬁt of regularization. Therefore, he submits that the petitioners are entitled to regularization. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation submits that the petitioners were appointed only on daily wage basis as Conductors and they are being paid wages as per the schedule. The petitioners are not continuing in their services and their services are utilizing as per the requirement in the Corporation. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to the beneﬁt of regularization in the Corporation. Admittedly the petitioners are being employed in the Corporation since 1999, pursuant to the notiﬁcation issued by the Corporation. The appointments of the petitioners were made through process of selection. Though the appointment of the petitioners were made in Anantapur region but the respondent Corporation taking their services in diﬀerent regions as per the requirements since 1999 on daily wage basis only. No reasons are forthcoming from the Corporation as to why the petitioners are not entitled to the beneﬁt of regularization even though the petitioners are working in the respondent Corporation since 1999. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent Corporation to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders on the issue of regularization, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 11-08-2008 LSK