IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.15130 of 2010 Between: Salaka Ravikiran and others ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The Government of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Law (Home Courts) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.15130 of 2010 ORDER: (per HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED) Petitioners, who are working in the Fast Track Courts under the control of respondent Nos.3 to 8, filed this petition with a prayer to declare the action of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not regularizing their services as arbitrary and illegal and, consequently, to direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider their representation dated 21.02.2010 for absorption of their services. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit contending that the Fast Track Courts scheme is meant for certain period and the same is being extended from time to time and as such they are purely temporary Courts and hence the staff are recruited on contract basis by executing agreements. It is also stated therein that working in Fast Track Courts on contract basis do not come under the purview of the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial Service and as such the services of the petitioners cannot be regularized. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. Perused the material available on record. This Writ Petition is misconceived inasmuch as the petitioners, who are working on contract basis in Fast Track Courts, which are purely temporary Courts, are seeking regularization of their services. It can be seen from the record that their appointment is on contract basis and is being extended from time to time and, as soon as the period of contract is over, they have to leave the job and the question of regularizing their services does not arise. For regularization, the first pre-condition is that there must be a vacancy, whether permanent or temporary. Such a vacancy must either be existing or may be created but it must be there. The normal rule, of course, is regular recruitment through a prescribed agency, but exigencies of administration may sometimes call for an ad hoc or temporary appointment to be made. The question of regularization of service of such ad hoc or temporary appointment arises only when the agency, which made such appointment, prescribes some conditions thereto and, if such appointee fulfills the conditions therein, then only the service of such appointee can be regularized. In the instant case, since the very continuance of the Fast Track Courts, which are purely temporary Courts, is doubtful, there is no such justification for entertaining this writ petition for giving such positive direction. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ____________________ G.CHANDRAIAH, J. 21st July 2010 CVRK