IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 14646 of 1999 Between: N. Rayanna, S/o. Kotaiah, R/o Dy. Executive Engineer, S.C.Society, Vijayawada, D.No. 74-12/2, RTC Colony, Near Autonagar Gate, Vijayawada. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Managing Director, A.P.S.C.C.S. Ltd, Masabtank, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector/Chairman S.C. Society Krishna District, Machilipatnam. 3 The Executive Engineer, S.C. Society, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the in action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Asst. Engineer and continuing the candidates on deputation basis despite instructions of the Govt. in letter No. 312/SCP II(2)/9063; dt. 7-10-1998 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.: MR.M.GANGA RAO The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SUNITHA} O R D E R:- This writ petition is ﬁled challenging the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer while continuing candidates brought on deputation basis, in spite of the instructions of the Government contained in its letter dated 7.10.1998. The petitioner stated that he was functioning as a Work Supervisor under the control and jurisdiction of the Deputy Executive Engineer, A.P.S.C.Cooperative Society Limited (for short “A.P.S.C.C.S.Ltd.), Vijayawada, Krishna District. He further stated that he was originally appointed as Work Inspector in the year 1987 and was appointed as Work Supervisor vide proceedings dated 10.4.1999. He claims to have completed 12 years of service, and based on his qualiﬁcation of L.C.E., he claims entitlement for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. His grievance is that his claim is being delayed on the ground that one G.Muniratnam, deputationist, is being continued as Assistant Engineer in the A.P.S.C.C.S.Ltd. The respondent-society ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit, wherein it is stated that the petitioner was never appointed as Work Inspector in the year 1987 by the respondent-society. It is further stated that the petitioner was engaged on daily wages as Work Inspector in the Engineering Division of the respondent-society in that year. The counter aﬃdavit also demonstrates the necessity felt by the respondent-society at that point of time which required it to resort to engaging the petitioner on daily wage basis. The respondent-society further stated that the petitioner was only a temporary Work Inspector and unless his services are regularized, he will not be eligible for promotion. The petitioner has not ﬁled a reply to the counter aﬃdavit, and hence, the facts stated therein remained uncontroverted. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is entitled to be regularized in service, and accordingly, he may be permitted to make a representation in this regard. That, however, is not the subject matter of this writ petition. The issue raised in the writ petition is with regard to the petitioner’s claim for being considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer and the unrebutted fact that the petitioner is not even regularized in service and was engaged on daily wage basis, clearly disentitles him to any relief in the present writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ P.V. SANJAY KUMAR, J 21st August, 2008 bcj