THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.26024 of 2007 Dated : 17-01-2008 Between : Mohd. Miya @ Mohd. Ikramuddin … Petitioner/s And The Superintendent, Postal Stores Department, Hyderabad and 5 others. …Respondent/s THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.26024 of 2007 ORAL ORDER : (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R. Varma) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 2. This Writ of Certiorari is filed seeking to quash the order, dated 02-11-2006, in O.A.No.1189 of 2003, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’), dismissing the O.A., filed seeking to absorb and regularise the services of the petitioner in Group-D post on par with his juniors. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as Mazdoor/Waterman in the Postal Stores Depot, Hyderabad, since 1981-82. Though he is senior among the other similarly situated workers, his case was not considered for absorption in Group-D category and on the contrary his juniors were absorbed. Aggrieved by the same, he approached the Tribunal by way of filing original application O.A.No.1189 of 2003. The Tribunal, having gone into the merits of the case, dismissed the said O.A., on the ground that he was never engaged by the Department as part-time casual labourer through the agency of employment exchange and his case for absorption in Group-D category cannot be considered. Hence the present writ petition. 4. It is not in dispute that the applicant was originally appointed as Mazdoor in 1981-82. It is also not in dispute that on an application made by the petitioner, by letter, dated 07-05-1996, he was informed that he was never engaged as part-time casual labourer through the agency of Employment Exchange and his case for absorption in Group-D category cannot be considered. But, the said letter, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for absorption in Group-D category, was not challenged immediately thereafter. The other questions regarding the seniority etc., were all questions of fact, which cannot be gone into by this Court. 5. It is further relevant to note that in the counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal, it has been specifically denied by the respondent authorities that respondents 3 to 6, who were allegedly juniors to the petitioner, were absorbed in the posts of Group-D category. 6. In view of the above said backdrop and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner did not challenge the letter, dated 07-05- 1996, of the respondent-authorities denying the appointment of the petitioner as part-time casual labourer through the agency of Employment Exchange and also in view of the fact that his services were disengaged by the respondent authorities with effect from 04-12-2002, we do not find any illegality or irrationality in the findings recorded by the Tribunal, dismissing the O.A. 7. We are of the further view that it is inexpedient to set the clock back, at this length of time, particularly when the very allegation of the petitioner that respondents 3 to 6 were absorbed was specifically denied by the respondent authorities. 8. For the foregoing, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA _______________________ JUSTICE K.C. BHANU 17-01-2008 Msr