IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 874 of 2005 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 18/08/2004 in WP.NO:16244 OF 1999 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The Regional Manager, APSRTC Ongole, Prakasam District ..... APPELLANT AND 1. N.Satyanarayana, S/o.N.Ramaiah R/o.Vadde Bazar, Markapuram Prakasam District 2. G.R.N.Reddy, S/o.G.Chenchaiah R/o.Peddaraveedu Village & Manadal Prakasam District 3. I.Venkateswarlu, S/o.Narayana R/o.10/35, Markapuram, Prakasam District ... RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant : MR.R.MANMADHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : MR.M.RAVINDRANATH REDDY The Court at the stage of admission, made the following : JUDGMENT:( per the Hon’ble Smt.Justice T.Meena Kumari) With the consent of both the learned counsel, the writ appeal is being disposed of at the interlocutory stage itself. This Writ Appeal is filed by the appellant-Corporation challenging the order, dated 18.08.2004 in Writ Petition No.16244 of 1999 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court. The said writ petition was filed by the respondents seeking regularization of their services from the date of their initial appointment and for other consequential benefits. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the impugned order. The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition relying upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in DIVISIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC AND OTHERS v P.LAKSHMOJI RAO. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. (T.MEENA KUMARI, J) (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) Dt: 06.04.2005 bsv/lvl To 1. The Regional Manager, APSRTC Ongole, Prakasam District 2. Two CD copies