IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16212 of 1999 Between: Paleti Nageswararao, S/o. Subbarao R/o. Paletivari Street, Karmcjedu (P&M), Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P. Transco, Throgh its Member Secretary, At Somajigudu, Hyderabad 2 The Superintending Engineer Operation Circle, A.P. Transco, Ongole. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: None appeared Counsel for the Respondents: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following: Order: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside letter, dated 17.07.1999, issued by respondent No.2. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Heard Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. The petitioner claimed to have been selected as apprentice trainee under respondent No.2 and completed his training successfully on 28.12.1982. As his claim for appointment in the service of respondent No.1 was not considered, he filed W.P.No.5833 of 1998 which was disposed of by this Court, at the admission stage, directing the respondents to supply the petitioner the prescribed application form for the post of Sub-Engineer and consider his case without insisting that his candidature should be sponsored by the concerned employment exchange. The petitioner’s application, which was considered, was rejected by impugned letter, dated 17.07.1999 on the ground that he was over aged as on 30.11.1997. The petitioner questions this order principally on the ground that there was delay on the part of the respondents in considering his case for regularization and that had his case been considered at an appropriate time, he would not have been age barred. In my considered view, such a plea cannot be accepted. The law is well settled that a daily wage worker or temporary employee has no indefeasible legal right for absorption, unless the employer formulates a scheme. In fact, the Courts have held that absorption of daily wage workers or employees, who are engaged through backdoor methods, violates Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India and only in exceptional cases, the schemes have to be formulated by the employers to avoid undue hardship to those who are engaged for several years and continued on temporary status. In recent judgments in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)[1] and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand[2], the Supreme Court held that mere working for long years in temporary service would not by itself vest any right in a daily wage worker or temporary employee for absorption. In view of this well settled law, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any case of violation of any of his rights in denying employment to him. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J. Date: 19.12.2008 VGB [1] (2006) 4 SCC 1 [2] (2008) 10 SCC 1