THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.No.464 of 2005 JUDGMENT (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The appellant, who was appointed as Junior Assistant/Typist on consolidated pay of Rs.1,500/-per month vide proceedings dated 15.02.1994 in the Andhra Pradesh State Social Welfare Advisory Board, filed W.P.No.9666 of 1999 challenging the order dated 09.04.1999 appointing the third respondent as regular Junior Assistant/Typist without considering his case for regular appointment though he acquired more qualifications and put up service for a long time than that of the third respondent. By order dated 24.01.2005, the learned Judge of this Court having held that the very source and the nature of appointment of the appellant is totally different with that of the appointment of the third respondent dismissed the said writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the present writ appeal. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the candidature of the appellant was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and the appellant was appointed on selection basis having more qualifications than the third respondent. He also contended that the services of the third respondent were regularized though his name was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange and is junior to the appellant. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2-Board contended that the appointment of the appellant was solely on the basis of a specific scheme, which is a temporary one and liable to be discontinued at any time and as such his services cannot be regularized and that the appointment of the third respondent is by the State Board. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in GURBACHAN LAL v. REGIONAL ENGINEERING COLLEGE, KURUKSHETRA[1] wherein it was held as under: “Therefore, since the service of the appellant was temporary in nature; appointed under a scheme which had come to an end and he had joined the service in complete recognition and acceptance of the conditions and further had already accepted fresh assignment on the basis of a new scheme as noted herein earlier, it cannot be said that termination of his service was invalid in law. Therefore, the stand of the appellant that it was not open to the Board of Governors of the Institution to say that they were unable to continue with EDC and thereby terminating the services of the appellant, does not hold good. 5. The appellant was appointed as Junior Assistant/Typist in the Family Counselling Center, located in the Women’s Protection Cell, C.B. CID Police, Hyderabad and is working as such. Since the services of the appellant are temporary in nature as he was appointed under a specific Scheme, which had come to an end, the respondents cannot regularize his services, as held by the Supreme Court in the decision cited supra. As there is no dispute that the appointment of the third respondent would not come under the Scheme and the appellant is not on par with third respondent, the appellant cannot claim any benefit on par with the third respondent. In view of the same, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date:11.10.2011 sj [1] (2007)11 SCC 102