IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.6660 of 2004 Between: Praveen Kumar, S/o.Pratap Reddy, R/o.Anantagiri, (post), Illanthakunta (M),Karimnagar Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Manager,APSRTC, Karimanagar Region, Karimnagar Dist. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, VEmulavada Bus Depot, Vemulavada, Karimanagar Dist. ....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 writ order or direction or writ more particular one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner in pursuance of the circular dt.24-4-97 i.e., after completion of 240 days from the date of initial appointment as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the petitioner's services in pursuance of the circular No.PD-30/1997, dated 24-4-1997 issued by the corporation and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.G.RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.G.JYOTHI KIRAN The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner in pursuance of the Circular dated 24-4-1997 i.e. after completion of 240 days from the date of initial appointment as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to regularize the petitioner’s services in pursuance of the Circular No.PD-30/1997, dated 24-4-1997 issued by the respondent-Corporation. Petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the respondent- Corporation with effect from 16-7-1998. Thereafter, his services were regularized by Proceedings dated 30-10-2002. Now, it is the grievance of the petitioner that as per the Circular dated 24-4-1997, he is entitled for regularization of his services from the date of his initial appointment. It is also asserted by the petitioner that those who are juniors to him, their services were regularized even prior to the date of regularization of his services on 30-10-2002. But, the details of the said juniors are not furnished. On the other hand, in the counter filed on behalf of the respondents, it is asserted that the services of none of the juniors to the petitioner were regularized prior to the date of regularization of the services of the petitioner i.e. 30-10-2002 nor the services of those, who were appointed along with the petitioner, were regularized prior to that date. In view of the same, it is clear that the petitioner is not able to demonstrate either that the services of his juniors or of any persons, who were appointed along with him, were regularized prior to the date of regularization of his services. The Writ Petition is, therefore, devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 18-3-2008 prk