THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.26024 of 2000 ORDER: According to the petitioner, she studied upto Class V and she was appointed as a contingent sweeper with effect from 01.06.1998 with the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Electrical Sub-Division, Srisailam Project, Kurnool District. While that being so, another contingent employee, who was working along with her, was offered appointment on regular basis with effect from 31.10.2000, and therefore, she is also entitled for appointment as regular Mazdoor on par with one D.Sivamma and others, who are juniors to her. Hence, this writ petition. There is no necessity of going into all the details. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner was never entertained as contingent sweeper as alleged by her and that the recruitment of contingent employees was banned by erstwhile A.P.S.E.B. way back in the month of March, 1992. It is also stated that the services of the petitioner were utilized as part-time sweeper in the Sub-Divisional Office, for which she was paid Rs.100/- per month from June, 1999 to June, 2000 from the impresent account of Assistant Divisional Engineer, that no contingent employee was appointed as regular Man Mazdoor with effect from 31.10.2000, that no person by name D.Sivamma worked as contingent employee in their Division. It is further stated that there are no contingent employees working in Heavy Transport Division and also there are no vacancies of Mazdoors in the Heavy Transport Division, therefore, the petitioner is not at all entitled for absorption as Mazdoor on regular basis, as prayed by her. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Except stating that the petitioner is working as a contingent sweeper, no other material has been placed before this Court in support of her contention. On the other hand, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is categorically asserted that there is ban of recruitment of contingent staff with effect from March, 1992 and that the petitioner was engaged as part-time sweeper only for a period of one year on payment of Rs.100/- per month. In these circumstances, and particularly, when there is no evidence to show that the petitioner worked as a contingent employee, it cannot be said that the she is entitled for appointment as regular Mazdoor. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, it is made clear that for any reason, if the case of the petitioner is considered in the meanwhile, the same shall not be disturbed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 26.11.2010 v v