IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 6644 of 2008 Between: B. Ravi Kumar, S/o. B. Narsanna, O/o. Post Master, Head Post Office, Kurnool. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of India, Rep. by its Director General of Postal Services, New Delhi 110 001. 2 The Chief Post Master General, AP Circle Hyderabad - 500 001./ 3 Post Master General, Kurnool Region, Kurnool 518 001. 4 The Superintendent of Post Offices, Kurnool Division, Kurnool 518 001. 5 The Post Master (HSG-1) Kurnool 518 001. .....RESPONDENTS 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, especially one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari: i. Call for the records pertaining to OA No. 933 of 2005 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and allow the same, duly setting aside the order 27- 12-2005 passed therein. ii. and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR W.P. No. 6644 of 2008 O R D E R: (Per THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) This writ petition is filed against the order dated 27.12.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in O.A. No. 933 of 2005. By the impugned order, the prayer of the petitioner to give direction to the respondents to consider his case for regular appointment by setting aside the impugned order dated 15.6.2005 was rejected by the Tribunal. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to impress this Court by contending that the order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous and hence it is liable to be set aside, it is seen from the material available on record that the Tribunal noticed that the petitioner was appointed as substitute way back on 1.2.1996 and had continued till 31.7.1997 and, therefore, the letter dated 17.5.1989 which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant before the Tribunal was rightly held not applicable to the case of the petitioner as the same relates to casual labourers. The order passed by the Tribunal further discloses that the learned counsel for the applicant failed to show any provision under which the applicant – petitioner is entitled for regularization. The Tribunal further referred to the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 20161 of 2003 in which this Court came to the conclusion that it cannot be contended that the petitioner herein was employed as contingent employee. In the absence of any material placed before the Tribunal to show that the petitioner is entitled to be regularized, the Tribunal rightly rejected the O.A. filed by the petitioner herein and we do not find any error or legal infirmity in the said order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference of this Court. We find no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. T. MEENA KUMARI, J. S. ASHOK KUMAR, J. Date: 28-03-2008. MVB.