IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR W.P.NO.26371 OF 2001 10-12-2010 Between:- T.Madhu .. Petitioner And The Secretary, ANDHRA PRADESH Legislative Assembly, Hyderabad. ..Respondent ORDER:- The point that arise for determination in this petition is whether the action of the Government in not absorbing the petitioner as an Attender on a permanent basis is invalid and whether this Court should now direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner as Attender on a permanent basis. 2. The point arises in the following circumstances: The petitioner’s case is that he was initially appointed as an Attender by an Office Order Rt.No.41/OP.II/86 dated 18-03-1986 on a temporary basis in the Peshi of Sri K.Jayaram, the then Government Whip, Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly with effect from 01-03- 1986 by the then Assistant Secretary to State Legislature and that his services were terminated with effect from 14-07-1987 and he was again appointed by the Deputy Secretary to State Legislature by his order dated 11-08-1987 in the Peshi of the Chief Whip to the Government. The petitioner’s grievance is that subsequently also his services were terminated and again he was reappointed on 11-11- 1991 as Attender in the Peshi of the Chairman, Committee of Social Welfare for Backward Classes, Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly with effect from 21-10-1991 and again, his services were terminated on some occasions and ultimately, he was again reappointed by the Assistant Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Legislature Department by his proceedings dated 18-12-2001 as an Attender along with 24 other Attenders on lumpsum basis with effect from 18-12-2001. The plea of the petitioner is that despite several representations made by him, he has not been absorbed into last grade service on permanent basis and therefore, the Government should now be directed to absorb him on permanent basis in the post of Attender by declaring the action of the Government in not absorbing him so as illegal. 3. I have gone through the affidavit of the petitioner and the various appointment orders and also termination orders filed by him. All the appointment orders show that petitioner was appointed only on a temporary basis on the express condition that his services are liable to be terminated. The petitioner could not mention about any provision of law or rule in his affidavit under which he could seek appointment on a permanent basis and his counsel now says that petitioner is eligible for regularization or absorption under G.O.Ms.No.212, Fin.,&Plg., (FW.PC.III)Dept, dated 22-04-1994. The terms of the G.O. are different and the G.O. is not a ground to grant a direction sought for by petitioner. The Government has not filed counter and the Government Pleader has also not appeared for the reason that the name of the Government Pleader (Home) is not printed in the cause list today. But this does not make any difference to the merits of the matter. 4. It may be noted at the risk of representation that the petitioner has not made clear any rule or provision of law in his pleadings as to on what basis, this Court can direct the respondent to appoint him on permanent basis in the post of Attender. Sri M.Mehdi Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner is still continuing in service and if that is so, it is open for the respondent to employ him and the petitioner is at liberty to continue in the said service. However, in the above circumstances, this Court cannot grant any positive direction to the Government to absorb him as an Attender either in the Andhra Pradesh Last Grade Service or in the Andhra Pradesh Legislature Last Grade Service. It is however open for the petitioner to make an application or representation before the Government putting forth his case and as and when the petitioner makes such representation giving out all the details of his claim, the Government or the concerned authority shall consider the same and take a decision one way or the other having regard to the provisions of the rule position in the matter. 5. This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the above direction. No costs. ___________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR ,J 10th December 2010 AMD