THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA W.A.No. 1465 of 2009 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla) This appeal is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporatio (Corporation) against the order dated 19.6.2009 in writ petition No. 3967 of 2003. B impugned order, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition with a direction to t Corporation to consider the case of the first respondent herein for regularisation of h services from the date of award i.e. 11.10.1996. 2. In the said writ petition, the first respondent assailed the proceedin No.St/785(5)/02-EE’C dated 23.1.2003 of the Corporation issued pursuant to the orders this court in W.P.M.P. No.26979 of 2002 in W.P.No.21540 of 2002. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the first respondent was appointed as Ma Mazdoor in the year 1978 and that he had put in 13 months service. But his services we terminated from 31.12.1979 by the Corporation. Aggrieved thereby, the first responde approached the Labour Court, Anantapur by filing I.D.No.70 of 1993 and the learne Labour Court after going through the record passed an award dated 11.10.1996 directi the Corporation to reinstate him in to service with continuity of service and for payment compensation of Rs.2,000/- in lieu of back wages. In compliance of the award, the fi respondent was reinstated into service on 07.07.1999 and posted to Ananthapur Divisio but his services were not regularised. Then the first respondent filed W.P.No.21540 2002 and this court directed the Corporation to consider his case for regularisation. T Corporation has considered and rejected the representation of the first respondent date 24.9.2002 by proceedings dated 23.01.2003. Again the first respondent filed the prese writ petition and this court allowed the same by order dated 19.06.2009 directing t Corporation to consider the case of the first respondent for regularisation from the date award i.e. 11.10.1996. Challenging the order dated 19.06.2009 of learned Single Judg the present writ appeal is filed. 4. The learned standing counsel for the Corporation contended that since there are vacancies and there is a ban on recruitment in the Corporation, regularisation of servic of the first respondent would not arise and that no junior to the first respondent w regularised Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable either in law or on facts. 5. Per contra, the leaned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the learne Single Judge has given cogent and convincing reasons for allowing the writ petition file by the first respondent and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 6. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and also having regard to the fac and circumstances of the case, it is seen that the first respondent was appointed as Ma Mazdoor in the year 1978 in the Corporation and he continuously worked for 13 month Thereafter, his services were terminated. Pursuant to the orders of the learned Labo Court, the first respondent was reinstated into service, but his services were n regularised. Aggrieved thereby, the first respondent filed writ petition No.21540 of 200 and this court directed the Corporation to consider the case of the first respondent f regularisation and the same is considered and rejected. Then, the first respondent file the present writ petition. The learned Single Judge of this court allowed the writ petitio observing that similarly placed persons, who are appointed subsequent to the fi respondent were regularised. The Corporation has not explained convincing and coge reasons for not considering the case of the first respondent for regularisation. Therefo we do not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order. 7. In the circumstances, the writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as costs. _______________ (V.V.S. RAO,J) _______________ (B.N. RAO NALLA, J) 21.12.2009 Stp