IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 57 of 2006 Between: T. Naresh Kumar S/o. Late Roop Kiran, Saroornagar, Hyderabad, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Collegiate Education, Nampally, Hyderabad, 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Education, Rep. by its Secretary, 3 Vivek Vardhini Evening College of Arts & Commerce Rep. by its Secretary & Correspondent, .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ one in the nature of Mandamus and any other appropriate writ, Order or direction to the respondents to absorb or regularize the services of the petitioner in the existing vacancy in the aided post of Scavenger by declaring the action of the respondents in not absorbing or regularizing the services of the petitioner in the existing vacancy in the aided post of Scavenger as arbitrary, illegal, ultravires the Proceedings bearing Rc.No. 726/Admn. IV- 1/2001 dt. 9-7-2001, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.SRINIVASA MUKHERJEE Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 57 of 2006 ORDER The petitioner claims to have been appointed as a Scavenger way back in the year 1997 in the 3rd respondent-institution. His grievance is that his case has not been considered for regularization against aided vacancy. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit is ﬁled, stating that the appointment of the petitioner was not against aided vacancy, and that his case cannot be considered for regularization. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education and the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent. Basically, there exists a serious dispute as to whether any aided post of Scavenger has been sanctioned in favour of 3rd respondent. Be that as it may, in categorical terms, respondents 1 and 2 have stated that the appointment of the petitioner was only on part time basis, against a unaided vacancy. Under these circumstances, this Court cannot accede to the request of the petitioner to direct the respondents herein to regularize his services. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is working for more than a decade, in one capacity or other, it is directed that his case can be considered against a vacancy of Attender, admitted to grant-in-aid, duly verifying his eligibility for the same. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 01.08.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 57 of 2006 Date: 01.08.2008 JSU